Writ petition against a remand order is not maintainable as it does not finally determine parties' rights.

The dispute involves the partition of agricultural lands across multiple survey numbers in Village Kakakhedi, Ashoknagar. Partition proceedings originally concluded via an order dated 31.12.2012.

Respondent No. 1’s appeal against this order was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) on 18.03.2021.

In a second appeal, the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, set aside the lower orders on 31.01.2022 and remanded the matter for fresh partition, citing the need to afford all parties a hearing and noting discrepancies in Register No. 9.

The petitioner challenged this remand order under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending it was arbitrary, barred by limitation, and factually incorrect.

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against an order of remand that does not finally adjudicate the rights of the parties.

2. Whether the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner suffered from jurisdictional error, perversity, or patent illegality warranting interference.

The court applied the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, which requires a showing of jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or violation of natural justice for interference.

The court primarily relied on the precedent established by the Division Bench in Anant Singh and Another v. Govind and Others (1999 RN 99), which holds that a writ petition against a remand order is ordinarily not maintainable because such orders do not finally determine the rights of the parties.

The High Court observed that the Additional Commissioner’s order did not reach a final adjudication on the merits or the legal rights of the parties; it merely directed the Tehsildar to conduct fresh proceedings to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any "irreversible prejudice" or jurisdictional infirmity.

Regarding the petitioner's arguments on limitation and prior sale of land by Respondent No. 1, the Court held these were factual and legal contentions that must be raised before the competent authority during the fresh adjudication following the remand.

Since the parties retain the full opportunity to present their case before the lower authority, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction was deemed unnecessary.

The petition was dismissed for being devoid of merit and the Court directed the competent authority to provide an adequate hearing to all parties and decide the partition proceedings independently and strictly in accordance with the law.