SUNIL KUMAR TIWARI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing the order dtd. 30/7/2025, annexure P/6, passed by the Collector, District Sidhi in revision No.1/2024-25.

(2.) It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by original order dtd. 8/3/2022 the Tehsildar had mutated the name of respondent No.5 as well as the petitioner in the revenue records on the basis of annexure P/1 (partition cum exchange document). The respondent No.5 being aggrieved by the said mutation order, had preferred an appeal under sec. 44 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') along with an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay occurred in filing the said appeal. The said application was allowed vide order dtd. 11/3/2024 by the Appellate Authority, i.e. S.D.O. Churhut, Rampurnaikin, District Sidhi. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order dtd. 11/3/2024 had preferred revision before the Collector, District Sidhi, which was registered as 1/Revision/2024-25. It is submitted that the revision was against the order, annexure P/4 dtd. 11/3/2024, wherein the appellate authority has allowed the application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. It is further submitted that the revisional authority exceeded in its jurisdiction in deciding the entire case and by holding that the original order annexure P-2 is bad in law and, therefore, the same has been quashed. It is the submission of counsel for the petitioner that such order could not have been passed beyond its jurisdiction as the revision was filed only against the order passed on the application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act by appellate Authority, while entertaining the appeal at initial stage. As such, the original order which was not under challenge before the appellate authority could not have been quashed by the revisional authority and, thus, prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the said order.

(3.) Per Contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the order passed by the revisional authorities are in consonance with law and does not call for any interference by this Court under the supervisory jurisdiction enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.