Mohan Singh vs Nyayalya Rajaswa Mandal, Madhya Pradesh

Sujoy Paul, Judge

He is heard on admission. In this petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 03/01/2012. By the said order, the Board has upheld the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer and remitted the matter back to the Tehsil Court to decide the matter in accordance with law.

Initially, on 10/11/1999, the Tehsil Court passed an order of partition, against which in second appeal the Court of Commissioner by order dated 20/12/2005 directed the Tehsil Court to rehear the parties and pass the order. On this remand, the Tehsil Court again passed the order dated 02/01/2008. Against this order, an appeal was preferred to Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 17/06/2008 found that the earlier order of Commissioner whereby, matter was remitted back to deal with the case in a particular manner is not followed in letter and spirit. Thus, he decided to remand the matter with further direction of appointment of a team consisting of Revenue Officer and 2 Patwaries. Thereafter, by giving prior notice to both the sides, it was directed to record relevant "batwarafard". The said document was directed to be produced before the competent Court and both the parties were given liberty to prefer their objections against it. With these directions, he remitted the matter back to Tehsil Court. Against this, appeal was filed by the petitioner, which was allowed by Additional Commissioner. Additional Commissioner turned down the order of Sub-Divisional Officer aforesaid. Against which, the respondent No.5 herein preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board, by impugned order dated 03/01/2012 upheld the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, quashed the order of Additional Commissioner and remitted the matter back to the Tehsil Court to comply with the order of Sub-Divisional Officer.

Shri Dhakad, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the parties entered into a settlement and thumb impressions of both the parties are mentioned in the same and, therefore, subsequent exercise by the Courts was unnecessary and amounts to multiplying the litigation.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the argument is without any substance. The Commissioner Court earlier remitted the matter back because the allegation was that the alleged compromise is a doctored/ fabricated document. The said remand order was not called in question by the petitioner. Thus, in this round of litigation where the Sub-Divisional Officer has tested the order of Tehsildar on the anvil of first remand order, petitioner cannot take ''U'' turn nor can be permitted to take assistance of the alleged compromise, which was not accepted and therefore, by order dated 20/12/2005 Annexure-P/5 the Commissioner interfered in the matter. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Revenue Board have acted in accordance with law and have only remitted the matter back to ensure transparency and observance of procedure. There is no infirmity, which warrants interference in this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. In the result, petition is dismissed. No costs.