Radheshyam Bhalot vs State Of M.P. And Others

Pranay Verma, J

By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 19.11.2025 [Annexure P/4 and Annexure P/5] issued to him.

An application has been preferred by respondent No.5 before the Sub Divisional Officer under Section 51 of MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 for review of order dated 29.01.2025 passed by him. On the said application notice has been issued to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Sub Divisional Officer could not have reviewed the order without seeking sanction from the higher authority as provided under Section 51 of the Code, 1959. The revenue case has already been registered on the application of respondent No.5 hence the review would be deemed to have been entertained.

In my opinion that is not so. On an application under Section 51 of the Code having been filed by respondent No.5 notice has been issued to the petitioner since it is a requirement that prior to seeking sanction for review of any order passed by an officer subordinate to the Collector he has to obtain sanction in writing of the Collector as per proviso (I) to subsection (1) of Section 51. It is only for this purpose that notice has been issued to the petitioner and it cannot be said that the notice has been issued for the purpose of reviewing the order itself.

From the order sheet dated 19.11.2025 it does not appear that notice has been issued to the petitioner for review of the order. He can very well appear before the Sub Divisional Officer and state that prior to initiating the proceedings for review he is required to obtain sanction from the Collector.

It is hence directed that the petitioner may appear before the Sub Divisional Officer and as raise the objections as have been raised by him in this petition and it so raised shall be adjudicated upon by the Sub Divisional Officer in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observation, petition stands disposed off.