Mahesh Kumar Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32914
1 WP-8290-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
th
ON THE 26 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8290 of 2020
CNR No.: MPHC030102032020
MAHESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA AND ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Udit Saxena - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Shiraz Qureshi - GA for the respondents/State.
Shri Ashish Shrivastava - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated
04.05.2018 (Annexure P/1) and the order dated 28.01.2020 (Annexure
P/2), passed by respondent No.2/Additional Commissioner Chambal
Division Morena, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents was
allowed and while setting aside the order dated 25.01.2018 the matter
was remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ater, District Bhind, for
fresh consideration.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the order dated
04.05.2018 was passed by the appellate authority without issuing notice
to the petitioners and without affording them any opportunity of hearing,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 10/30/2026
10:54:30 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32914
2 WP-8290-2020
thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It is further contended

that the order of remand is contrary to the provisions of Section 49 of the
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, particularly the statutory
restrictions governing remand by the second appellate authority.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appellate
authority allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Ater, District Bhind, without considering the
mandatory requirements of law. It is further contended that the
petitioners preferred a review application against the order dated
04.05.2018; however, the same was rejected by the order dated
28.01.2020 without due consideration of the grounds raised therein. It is
also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the
appellate authority proceeded to decide the appeal on merits without first
condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Such exercise, according to the
petitioners, is contrary to law and vitiates the impugned orders.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents as
well as counsel for the State oppose the petition and submits that the
impugned orders have been passed by the competent revenue authority
in exercise of its appellate and review jurisdiction. Learned counsel for
the respondents further submits that the remand was ordered to enable
the competent revenue authority to reconsider the matter in accordance
with law and that the petitioners would have an opportunity to raise their
objections before the authority concerned during the subsequent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 10/30/2026
10:54:30 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32914
3 WP-8290-2020
proceedings. It is, therefore, contended that no interference is called for

with the impugned orders and that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
6. The principal grievance raised by the petitioners concerns the
alleged violation of the principles of natural justice and the legality of
the remand order passed by the appellate authority. The petitioners have
specifically pleaded that no notice was issued to them before passing the
order dated 04.05.2018 and that they were not afforded an opportunity to
put forth their defence.
7. It is a settled principle of law that an order having civil
consequences ought not to be passed to the prejudice of an affected party
without affording such party a reasonable opportunity of hearing, unless
the applicable law expressly excludes such requirement. The observance
of the principles of natural justice assumes particular significance where
an appellate authority interferes with an order passed by a subordinate
revenue authority and remands the matter for fresh consideration. In the
present case, the petitioners have also questioned the remand on the
ground that the same is contrary to the provisions of Section 49 of the
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The legality of the exercise
of appellate jurisdiction, including compliance with the statutory
requirements governing remand, is required to be examined by the
competent authority in accordance with the applicable provisions of law.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 10/30/2026
10:54:30 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32914
4 WP-8290-2020
8. Having regard to the nature of the controversy and the grounds

raised in the petition, this Court is of the considered view that the matter
deserves to be reconsidered by the competent appellate authority after
affording an effective opportunity of hearing to all the affected parties.
The appellate authority is also required to consider the objection
regarding limitation and the applicability of Section 49 of the Madhya
Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, before proceeding further in the
matter.
9. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the underlying revenue dispute, the present petition is disposed of with
the following directions:
(i) The impugned order dated 04.05.2018 (Annexure P/1) and
the consequential order dated 28.01.2020 (Annexure P/2) are
hereby set aside.
(ii) The matter is remitted to the respondent No.2/competent
appellate authority for fresh consideration in accordance with
law.
(iii) The appellate authority shall issue notice to all the
affected parties and afford them a reasonable opportunity of
hearing before passing a fresh order.
(iv) The appellate authority shall first consider and decide the
question of limitation, including whether the delay in filing
the appeal was required to be condoned and whether a valid
order in that regard has been passed. The appeal shall
thereafter be dealt with in accordance with law.
(v) The appellate authority shall also consider the objections
raised by the petitioners regarding the applicability of Section
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 10/30/2026
10:54:30 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32914
5 WP-8290-2020
49 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959,
including the legality and permissibility of remanding the
matter to a subordinate revenue authority.
(vi) The appellate authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking
order after considering the submissions of all concerned
parties and the relevant provisions of law.

10. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the revenue dispute or on the entitlement of either party to
the relief claimed before the revenue authorities. All such issues shall be
decided independently by the competent authority in accordance with
law.
11. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to
costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 10/30/2026
10:54:30 AM