Writ Petition against partition order dismissed for availability of alternative statutory remedy before Sub-Divisional Officer.

The petitioner challenged an order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the Tehsildar, which allowed an application for partition (Batankan) under Section 178 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, regarding 9.3800 hectares of joint holding land.

The petitioner alleged the order was passed ex-parte without notice or hearing to all necessary legal heirs.

The petitioner subsequently filed a statutory appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) under Section 44 of the Code, along with an application for stay and condonation of delay.

While the appeal was pending, the SDO rejected the interim relief application on 10.03.2026, leading the petitioner to approach the High Court seeking to quash the partition and subsequent demarcation proceedings.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when a statutory appellate remedy is already being pursued by the petitioner.

2. Whether the partition and demarcation proceedings were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandatory procedure under the M.P. Land Revenue Code.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court's discretionary power to provide relief when alternative statutory remedies exist.

Section 178 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, governing the partition of joint holdings.

Section 52 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code regarding the power of revenue courts to grant interim protection.

The principle of "exhaustion of alternative remedies," suggesting that factual or procedural disputes under local land laws should be adjudicated by the designated appellate authorities first.

The Court observed that the petitioner had already invoked the statutory remedy of appeal before the SDO against the impugned partition order.

It noted that the appellate authority was already seized of the matter and had even directed a status quo regarding revenue records pending receipt of the original file.

The Court reasoned that since the grievances—specifically regarding the non-service of notice, procedural irregularities, and the legality of the partition—involved questions of fact and law capable of being decided by the SDO based on the original revenue records, there was no justification for the High Court to intervene at this stage under its extraordinary jurisdiction.

The Court directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the pending statutory appeal expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order, after hearing all parties.

The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits, leaving all legal and factual questions open for the appellate authority's determination.