Second appeal is barred against orders passed under Sections 170-A and 170-B of MPLRC.

The petitioner challenged an order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Second Appellate Authority).

The Commissioner had rejected the petitioner’s second appeal against an order of the Additional Collector, Waidhan, dated 12.10.2015.

The rejection was based on the ground of maintainability, specifically that a second appeal is barred against orders passed in proceedings under Section 170-A or Section 170-B of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC).

The petitioner then approached the High Court via a Miscellaneous Petition challenging this dismissal.

1. Whether a second appeal is maintainable against orders passed under Section 170-A or Section 170-B of the MPLRC.

2. Whether a revision under Section 50 of the MPLRC is the appropriate remedy when a second appeal is expressly barred by statute.

The Court applied Section 170-D of the MPLRC, which expressly bars second appeals against orders passed under Section 170-A and Section 170-B after October 24, 1983.

It further applied Section 50 of the MPLRC, which governs the revisional powers of the Board or Collector, stipulating that a revision may be filed against any order passed by a subordinate Revenue Officer in cases where no appeal lies, provided the officer exercised jurisdiction not vested in him, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally/with material irregularity.

The Court observed that the Additional Commissioner’s reasoning was legally sound because Section 170-D contains a non-obstante clause specifically prohibiting second appeals in these matters.

Consequently, the order of the Commissioner was not a decision on merits but a correct application of statutory bars on maintainability.

However, the Court noted that Section 50 of the MPLRC provides for a revision in instances where an appeal is not available.

Since Section 50 does not list Section 170-A or 170-B proceedings as exceptions to revisional jurisdiction, the Court reasoned that the petitioner was entitled to seek a remedy through a revision petition before the competent revisional authority.

The Court disposed of the petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file a revision under Section 50 of the MPLRC against the Additional Collector’s order.

To ensure justice, the Court directed that the time spent prosecuting the incompetent appeal be excluded for limitation purposes, provided the revision is filed within 15 days.

The revisional authority was advised to decide the matter within three months.