Collector Cannot Entertain Revision When Statutory Appeal Remedy Exists: Madhya Pradesh HC

Statutory bypass of appellate forums by executive authorities constitutes a jurisdictional nullity that deprives litigants of their right to a multi-tiered legal challenge. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reinforced the sanctity of the hierarchy of remedies, ruling that a Collector cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction when a specific provision for a first appeal before a Sub-Divisional Officer remains available to the aggrieved party.

Justice Maninder S. Bhatti, presiding over the matter, scrutinized the procedural shortcuts taken by the revenue authorities in a dispute involving land possession. The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner, which had bypassed the prescribed appellate route under the state revenue laws.

Invalidation of Revisional Orders

The Court observed that the initial order was passed by the Tehsildar under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. According to the statutory scheme, such an order must be challenged via an appeal under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO). Instead, the respondent directly approached the Collector under Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which deals with revisional jurisdiction.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In the case in hand, the original order having been passed by the Tehsildar under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, ought to have been assailed under Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, by filing an Appeal before the SDO, and in the case in hand, no such Appeal has been preferred, and directly the Revision was preferred. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Collector ought to have appreciated this aspect of the matter, inasmuch as the Collector had invoked the revisional jurisdiction which is conferred under Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959."

The Court has the following directions:
"The respondent is granted liberty to file an Appeal before the SDO in terms of Section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, and if such an Appeal is preferred before the SDO within 15 working days from today, the same shall be dealt with and finally decided on merit within further period of 90 days after affording the opportunity to all concerned including the petitioner and private respondents, by passing a well reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law."

Background

The dispute began when a Tehsildar declined an application for restoration of possession filed by the private respondent under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 on September 10, 2024. The respondent, rather than filing a statutory appeal before the SDO, moved the Collector in a revision petition. The Collector entertained the revision and ruled in favor of the respondent. The petitioner then challenged this before the Commissioner, who dismissed the second revision on the grounds that no revision lies against an order passed in a revision.

The petitioner argued before the High Court that the Collector's order was a nullity as it deprived them of the appellate forum. The State and the private respondent argued that since the petitioner did not object to the maintainability before the Collector, they were precluded from doing so now. The High Court rejected this contention, holding that maintainability is a question of law. Consequently, the High Court set aside both the Collector's and the Commissioner's orders while granting the respondent liberty to approach the correct appellate forum.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION No. 43210 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:87814
Case Title: Babbelal Sahu And Anr Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Shri Jagat Singh - Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Shri Akshansh Shrivastava PL for the State, Shri Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay - Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MP) 36545