Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Sahu vs Rajendra Kumar Rathore on 6 January, 2026
1 MP-7588-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 6 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 7588 of 2025
SATISH SAHU
Versus
RAJENDRA KUMAR RATHORE
Appearance:
Shri Janak Lal Soni - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Devraj Vishwakarma - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
By way of present petition, challenge is made to order Annexure P/1 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal dated 15.12.2025, thereby allowing the appeal against order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and restoring the order of Tahsildar dated 04.10.2024, whereby Tahsildar had ordered eviction of the present petitioner from the land in question.
2. The present petitioner is aggrieved by the eviction order passed under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "MPLRC" for short) which was passed by the Tahsildar in pursuance of the findings in demarcation proceedings, whereby it was found that in land Survey No.350/260/1/1 area 0.020 hectare and land Survey No.350/260/2 area 0.244 hectare, there is unauthorised possession of the present petitioner and construction on a small portion of 0.015 hectare.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-01-2026 10:28:132 MP-7588-2025 Consequent to findings in demarcation proceedings, the Tahsildar ordered eviction of the present petitioner from the land encroached upon. This order was set aside by the Sub Divisional Officer in appeal vide order dated 03.04.2025 on the ground that since there is construction on some portion of land in question, therefore, the jurisdiction under Section 250 of MPLRC would not be available to the revenue authorities and for eviction from constructed portion, the only remedy available to party is to file a civil suit. Now, in second appeal the said order has been set aside by the Additional Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner has restored the eviction order passed by the Tahsildar.
3. The counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued on three grounds to challenge the order of the Additional Commissioner. The first ground was that the application filed by the present respondent Rajendra Kumar Rathore has been entertained whereas Rajendra Kumar Rathore is not the owner of the land in question and application under Section 250 of MPLRC can only be entertained at the instance of Bhumiswami and not at the instance of some other person. By placing reliance on land Khasras filed along with I.A. No.88/2026, it is argued that the recorded owner of land is one Meena Rathore and, therefore, the application could not have been entertained at the instance of present respondent once the recorded owner was Meena Rathore.
4. The second ground was that there is construction over the land in question and for eviction from a house, the only remedy is to file a suit for possession and not to resort to summary proceedings under Section 250 of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-01-2026 10:28:13 3 MP-7588-2025 MPLRC and therefore, the entire proceedings before the Tahsildar are without jurisdiction and the revenue authorities have gravely erred in passing the impugned orders.
5. The third ground which was vehemently raised was that division of holdings had not taken place on the map and unless the map had been amended containing the division of holdings, the revenue authorities could not have carried out demarcation and could not have passed orders of eviction on the basis of the said demarcation.
6 . Per contra, it was vehemently argued by learned counsel for the respondent that the revenue authorities have properly passed the impugned orders. It is argued that so far as the question of the respondent not being owner of land in Survey No.350/260/2 is concerned, the Khasra which has been filed is in respect of land in Survey No.350/260/2/2 because the holding in Survey No.350/260/2 has further been sub-divided into Survey No.350/260/2/1 and Survey No.350/260/2/2 and the second parcel is in the name of daughter of the respondent and, therefore, the petitioner cannot take any benefit out of the part of the land being in the name of daughter of respondent. It is further argued that so far as the question that the division being not carried out in the revenue map is concerned, the petitioner has already filed a Civil Suit in the matter and his application for temporary injunction has been rejected by the Civil Court and it has been recorded by the Civil Court that there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and refused to grant temporary injunction. It is further argued that the revenue authorities have carried out demarcation only in respect of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-01-2026 10:28:13 4 MP-7588-2025 those survey numbers in which there was division in the map. By relying on Panchanama of demarcation proceedings as available at page 35 of the petition, it is argued that the revenue authorities have only carried out demarcation of those survey numbers which had been divided in the revenue map and refused to carry out demarcation of other lands. So far as the construction is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent has also argued that the authorities in view of peculiar facts of this case could indeed have passed orders under section 250 of MPLRC.
7. Upon hearing counsel for the rival parties and on perusal of the record, it is seen that so far as the ground taken that application was filed by a person who was not owner/Bhumiswami of the land is concerned, the petitioner has relied on Khasra from which it appears that land in Survey No.350/260/2 has been further sub-divided and in part of the said sub-division, the name of daughter of the respondent has been recorded. This does not at all change the nature of the case, if in some portion of the land subsequently the name of daughter of the respondent has been recorded.
8. So far as the question that in the revenue map division was not carried out, from a perusal of Panchnama of demarcation proceedings available at page 35 of the petition, it is clear that the revenue authorities have carried out demarcation of only those survey numbers in which there was division in the revenue map and where there was no division in the revenue map, the revenue authorities refused to carry out demarcation. Therefore, this Court does not find any substance in contention of the petitioner that the demarcation has been carried out without there being any division in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-01-2026 10:28:13 5 MP-7588-2025 revenue map. Even otherwise, it is settled in law that in proceedings under Section 250 MPLRC, the defects of demarcation cannot be agitated and such defects of demarcation have to be agitated by separately challenging the demarcation proceedings. A coordinate Bench of this Court in MP No.210/2024 (Radheshyam vs. Gotulal and others) has held as under:-
"7. In the present case also the proceeding under Section 129 of the Code have not been challenged by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions thereof. If the petitioner felt that the demarcation proceedings are illegal, he ought to have applied before the Sub Divisional Officer for challenging the same. If his challenge had been negatived by the Sub Divisional Officer he could have challenged the same further as provided under the law. However, it does not appear that the demarcation proceedings carried out at the behest of respondent No.1 were ever challenged by the petitioner. The same hence attained finality. On strength of such demarcation, application under Section 250 of the Code was filed by respondent No.1 before the Tehsildar in which the legality of the proceedings of demarcation could not have been entertained since they had already attained finality. As held in Murloidhar and another vs. Board of Revenue M.P. and others, (2013)(3) MPLJ 184, it is not open for the legality of demarcation proceeding which attained finality to be questioned in a proceeding had instituted on strength of such demarcation. Since the petitioner has not challenged the demarcation proceedings the Sub Divisional Officer could not have entered into the legality of the same and dismissed the application of respondent No.1 which error has rightly been corrected by the Additional Commissioner by the impugned order."
9. The third ground which was raised with much vehemence was that since there is construction on the land in question, therefore, the proceedings under Section 250 MPLRC could not have been initiated. As per the demarcation report, the petitioner is found to have occupied 0.020 hectare in Survey No.350/260/1/1 and 0.244 hectare in Survey No.350/260/2. As per the map of demarcation proceedings placed on record by the petitioner at page 37 of the petition, it is clear that the construction is stated to be on a very small portion of 0.015 hectare out of total 0.244 hectare in the said survey number.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-01-2026 10:28:136 MP-7588-2025 Therefore, in Survey No.350/260/2 out of the total encroached area of 0.244 hectare, there is stated to be construction only on 0.015 hectare which is hardly 6% of the total encroached land area. Even of this land area of 0.015 hectare, which translates to only around 1600 sq. ft., nothing has been mentioned in any of the proceedings of revenue authorities which the petitioner seeks to heavy rely that what is the nature of construction, whether it is a pump house or whether it is a platform or whether it is a dwelling house, nothing has been disclosed in any of the reports which are placed for consideration of this Court along with the present petition.
10. So far as the reliance on judgement in the case of Deochand and others vs. Moolchand and others, reported in 2004 RN 24 is concerned, in the said case, it had come on record that there is dwelling house over the land in question and this Court held that Section 250 of MPLRC cannot be pressed into service for eviction from house. However, the present case is not a case of eviction from house but it is a case where it has been ambiguously mentioned that there is "some construction" over 0.015 hectare which is around 6% of the total land area and it, therefore, is a case of eviction from land and not eviction from house because very small portion of the land being occupied by some construction for which also it is not mentioned that what is the nature of construction, it cannot be said that it is a case of eviction from house. As per Section 2(1)(k) of MPLRC, "land" is defined as earth's surface and including all things attached or fastened to such land. Section 2(1)(k) of MPLRC is as under:-
"(k] "land" means a portion of the earth's surface whether or not under water, and, where land is referred to in this Code, it shall be deemed to include all things attached to or permanently fastened to anything attached to such land."Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-01-2026 10:28:13
7 MP-7588-2025
11. The aforesaid Section 2(1)(k) of MPLRC has been interpreted by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Asgar Ali vs. Amna Bi , reported in 2011(3) MPHT 98 (CG). The High Court of Chhattisgarh has relied on judgement of this Court in the case of Krishnakumar Das and another vs. Balram Das and others, reported in 1971 MPLJ 864 , wherein this Court has laid down that it has to be seen that what is the dominant purpose of restoration of possession. This Court in the case of Krishnakumar Das (supra) has held as under:-
"4. Now, the purpose of the Code is to provide a speedy and summary remedy to a Bhumiswami dispossessed of his land. No doubt, the land is fictionally meant to include even buildings on land; but it is clearly not the intent of the Code to provide a speedy and summary remedy under the Code to a Bhumiswami dispossessed of his immovable property. The use of the word 'Bhumiswami' in connection with the land of which he dispossessed and of which he may claim restoration of possession in Section 250 of the Code clearly shows that the speedy and summary remedy provided by the Code is to be restored when a person, who is Bhumiswami, is dispossessed of land which he holds in Bhumiswami rights and when the restoration of possession of such land is the dominant purpose. But, when the land is an appurtenance to the building and the dominant purpose of the plaintiff is to get restoration of possession of his building of which he alleges forcible dispossession, Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act would be his appropriate remedy which provides that 'if any person is dispossessed, without his consent, of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, be set up in such suit'. I am also add that buildings standing on land are fictionally made to mean land in the Code [see Section 2 (k) of the Code], provided there is nothing in the subject or the context, and that consequently, when the dominant purpose of a person who also happens to be a Bhumiswami is to recover possession of his house of which he has been illegally dispossessed, his house cannot come within the fictional definition of the word, 'land' as defined in the Code to give jurisdiction to a Tehsildar to restore him to its possession under Section 250 of the Code."
12. This Court has already considered in this order above that the respondent is in occupation of around 0.264 hectare of land and the construction is only on about 6% of the said land area and that too is not Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-01-2026 10:28:13 8 MP-7588-2025 specified that what is the nature of construction. Therefore, the dominant purpose in the present case, seems to be getting possession of the land and not getting possession of the constructed portion. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application for restoration of possession was maintainable notwithstanding the position that there was some construction over 0.015 hectare of the encroached land.
13. In this case, the petitioner has not projected any title nor has denied not being in occupation of the land. The petitioner has simply taken legal objections without denying being in possession of the land or without projecting his title. Even the Civil Court has rejected his application for temporary injunction.
14. In view of the above, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner.
15. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE psm Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 09-01-2026 10:28:13