High CourtsSingle Bench(2025) 10 MP CK 1457

Kailash Patel vs Barelal And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench · Decided on 8 October 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Deepak Khot, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Petition No. 5571 Of 2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 437 words

Deepak Khot, J

1.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 5.8.2025, annexure P/5 and order dated 24.1.2024, annexure P/7 by which the appeal filed by the respondents against the order dated 28.7.2023 passed by the S.D.O. has been allowed by the Addl. Collector and affirmed by the Commissioner.

2.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed an application under section 115 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for correction of the revenue entries. The said application was allowed by the S.D.O. vide order dated 28.7.2023. It is further submitted that on filing appeal by the respondents, the Additional Collector has found that the correction was sought of the entry which was prior to five years, which requires permission of the Collector as per mandate of section 115 of the Code and accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 28.7.2023 passed by the S.D.O. It is submitted that while setting aside the order passed by the S.D.O., the Additional Collector has not remanded back the matter to the S.D.O. for taking due permission as required under the law, and as such has committed grave error of law and, therefore, prayed for quashment of the same.

3.

Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the contention of the petitioner. However, it submitted that as the appeal has already been allowed by the Additional Collector on the ground that no permission has been sought to correct the record which was prior to five years and, therefore, such permission is required under the law and it can be granted by the Collector and thereafter appropriate orders can be passed.

4.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5.

It is evident from the impugned order dated 24.1.2024, annexure P/7, that the Additional Collector while allowing the appeal, has set aside the order passed by the S.D.O. dated 28.7.2023, but, at the same time, it was required that the matter should have been relegated back to the S.D.O. to decide afresh after taking due permission from the competent authority, which is left to be mentioned in the order.

6.

Hence, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the S.D.O. to decide the application under section 115 of the Code afresh in pursuance of the order passed by the Additional Collector, annexure P/7, and the Commissioner, Annexure P/5, by taking due permission from the competent authority as per the mandate of section 115 of the Code as expeditiously as possible.