BASSU Vs. KALLE LODHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner by the instant petition is challenging the order dtd. 18/1/2024 whereby the Commissioner has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent and set aside the order of Collector.

(2.) By order dtd. 10/4/2023, the Collector set aside the order of Sub Divisional Officer and remitted the matter to the said authority for deciding it afresh after granting opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The Commissioner has taken note of the provision of Sec. 49 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'Code, 1959') and set aside the order of Collector only on the ground that the remand is prohibited under the said provision. Although learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no complete prohibition from remand. The proviso appended to the said provision although provides that ordinarily it should not be remanded. Counsel submits that the order of Commissioner is illegal for the reason that the remand was made by the Collector only on the ground that the petitioner being a necessary party had to be heard by the SDO before allowing the application of Sec. 115 of the Code, 1959.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent on the other hand supports the order of Commissioner and submits that when there is an embargo provided not to remand the case, the appellate authority was free to record the evidence or to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and could decide the matter afresh. Nothing wrong has been committed by the Commissioner and therefore he submits that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.