Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/27752/2019 of RADHESHYAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 1 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMAON THE 1[st] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 27752 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
RADHESHYAM S/O HEERALAL BHIL, AGED ABOUT 30YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O: RAJGARHTEH SARDARPUR DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI AKASH RATHI - ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH COLLECTOR /DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DHAR (MADHYAPRADESH)2.SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE)SARDARPUR DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYAPRADESH)3.TEHSILDAR SARDARPUR DIST DHAR (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the orderdated 05.07.2019 passed by the Tehsildar, Sardarpur, District Dhar, whereby anorder of dispossession has been passed against him under the provisions ofSection 248 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.
02. Admittedly, against the aforesaid order an appeal under Section 44(1)of the Code, 1959 lies before the Appellate Authority.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permittedto avail the said remedy within a stipulated time period.
04. Prayer is reasonable hence it is directed that in case the petitionerprefers an appeal under Section 44(1) of the Code, 1959 before the AppellateAuthority within a period of 30 days from today, then the Appellate Authorityshall consider and decide the appeal on merits and shall not throw the sameover board on the ground of limitation.
05. Considering the fact that on 14.01.2020 an order was passed in thispetition staying the execution of the order dated 05.07.2019, it is directed thatthe said order shall remain in operation during pendency of the appeal ifpreferred by the petitioner within the aforesaid period.
06. With the aforesaid directions, without expressing any opinion onmerits, petition stands disposed off.
Shilpa
(PRANAY VERMA)JUDGE