Second appeal before Additional Commissioner is not maintainable against Sub-Divisional Officer’s order affirming the Tehsildar's decision.

The dispute involves agricultural land in Village Kasal, Tehsil Lahar, District Bhind, originally owned by late Shri Pratap Singh

Following his demise, legal heir Smt. Rama Devi initiated partition proceedings under Section 178-A of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC), resulting in a partition order by the Nayab Tehsildar dated 05.12.2009

Five years later, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 challenged this order before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO). The SDO dismissed the appeal on 12.09.2017, rejecting the application for condonation of delay

The respondents then approached the Additional Commissioner, who, via order dated 12.06.2023, set aside the lower orders and remanded the matter to the Tehsildar for a fresh hearing

The petitioners challenged this remand order before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

Whether the Additional Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal against an order of the SDO which had affirmed the Tehsildar's order by dismissing the initial appeal as time-barred.

The court relied on the procedural framework of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code regarding appellate and revisional jurisdictions.

Specifically, it applied the principle that when an SDO affirms an order of a Tehsildar (even by dismissing an appeal on limitation), the subsequent remedy lies in filing a revision before the Collector rather than a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner

The Court examined the hierarchy of authorities and the nature of the order passed by the SDO. It noted that the SDO’s order dated 12.09.2017 effectively affirmed the Tehsildar’s original partition order by refusing to condone the delay in the appeal

The Court reasoned that because the SDO's order was an affirmation of the Tehsildar's decision, the Additional Commissioner lacked the jurisdiction to act as a second appellate authority in this specific procedural context

Legal proceedings against such an order should have been initiated as a revision before the competent authority, namely the Collector, in accordance with the provisions of the MPLRC

Consequently, the Additional Commissioner’s intervention and remand directions were deemed a jurisdictional error

The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 12.06.2023 but granted liberty to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to file a revision before the Collector within thirty days

The Court further directed that if such proceedings are filed, the Collector must decide the matter on its merits, ignoring the question of limitation, within a period of two months. The petition was allowed to this extent