Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Gaur vs Yagyadatt Mishra on 17 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69293
1 MP-5775-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 17th OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 5775 of 2024
JAGDISH GAUR
Versus
YAGYADATT MISHRA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mohammad Aadil Usmani - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mukund Agrawal - G.A. for the State.
Shri Amit Bhurrak - Advocate for the respondents No.1 & 2.
ORDER
The present petition is filed challenging order Annexure P-8 dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, whereby the Sub Divisional Officer has remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar to decide the question of demarcation after giving opportunity of hearing to the present respondents.
2. Counsel for the petitioner had vehemently argued that the original order passed by the Tahsildar in terms of Section 129(4) MPLRC confirming mutation, was dated 05.08.2022 and the limitation period of 45 days expired on 19.09.2022. The application under Section 129(5) MPLRC was however filed on 03.08.2022, which was delayed by 14 days. There was application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, but the S.D.O. without passing any order on the said application has simply Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 12/22/2025 7:44:25 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69293 2 MP-5775-2024 entertained the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar to pass a fresh order.
3 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently supported the impugned order.
4. Upon hearing counsel for the rival parties and on perusal of the record so also the original record of proceedings before the SDO, which wa placed for perusal of this Court by learned counsel for the State, it is seen that the Tahsildar had conducted demarcation proceedings, wherein the present respondents had submitted objections, which are on record at page 15 of the present petition and the Tahsildar thereafter passed a consequential final order dated 05.08.2024 simply mentioning two sentences therein that he is in receipt of the demarcation report prepared by the Revenue Inspector and now no further proceedings are to be carried out and therefore, the matter is closed and consigned to record. The following order was passed by the Tahsildar " करण म राज व िनर क परसो रया के ारा आवेदक जगद श पता अमर सींग गौर िनवासी ितलकगंज सागर क मौजा पप रया करकट क भूिम खसरा नंबर 40 का सीमांकन कया गया। सीमांकन उपरा त ितवेदन पंचनामा, सूचना प , फ ड बुक तुत क गई जो करण म संल न है । करण म कोई कायवाह शेष नह ं करण न ती कर दा.दा.
हो।"
5. As per Section 129(4) of MPLRC, upon receipt of demarcation report, the Tahsildar has to to give opportunity of hearing to the parties interested and then confirm the demarcation report or to pass any such order as he be thinks fit. The relevant Sections 129(4) to 129(7) are as under :-
"(4) On the receipt of the demarcation report, the Tahsildar may, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties interested including the neighbouring land holders, confirm the demarcation report or may pass such order as he thinks fit.Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 12/22/2025 7:44:25 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69293 3 MP-5775-2024 (5) A party aggrieved by the confirmation of demarcation report under sub-section (4), may apply to the Sub-Divisional Officer to set it aside on any of the following grounds-
(a) that he was not given notice required under sub-section (2) or opportunity of hearing under sub-section (4); or
(b) any other sufficient ground :
Provided that such application shall not be entertained after the expiry of forty-five days from the date of confirmation the demarcation report by the Tahsildar or the date of knowledge, whichever is later.
(6) The Sub-Divisional Officer may, if he admits the application made under sub-section (5), after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties interested including the neighbouring land holders and making such enquiries as he may think fit, either confirm the demarcation report submitted under sub-section (2) or depute a team consisting of such persons as may be prescribed to carry out the demarcation once again.
(7) The team deputed under sub-section (6) shall, after giving notice to parties interested including the neighbouring land holders, demarcate the boundaries of a survey number or of a sub-
division of survey number or of a block number or of a plot number, construct boundary marks thereon and submit report to the Sub-Divisional Officer in such manner as may be prescribed and the Sub-Divisional Officer may pass such orders on it as he thinks fit."
6. The Tahsildar in the present case, though he was in receipt of objection of the present respondents, but did not consider the objections and simply wrote that he is in receipt of demarcation report and therefore, he closes the proceedings. The said order of the Tahsildar as quoted above does not at all fit in the legislative intent of Section 129(4) and therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Tahsildar had misapplied his jurisdiction conferred on him under Section 129(4) MPLRC in confirming the demarcation proceedings without passing any order on the objection of the respondents.
7. So far as the question of the representation under Section 129(5) Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 12/22/2025 7:44:25 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69293 4 MP-5775-2024 filed before the SDO being barred by limitation is concerned, as per proviso to Section 129(5), the application shall not be entertained after expiry of 45 days from confirmation of demarcation by the Tehsildar or the date of knowledge, whichever is later. Therefore, the legislative intent is that the starting point of limitation would be the date of knowledge of confirmation by the Tehsildar. In the present case, the respondents had filed application for condonation of delay in which it was clearly mentioned in paragraph 4 that they got information of the impugned order dated 05.08.2022 only on 31.08.2022 and from that date their application was within 45 days. The present petitioner filed reply to the said application and though, it was prayed to dismiss the application, but in the entire reply which is placed on record as an Annexure P-6, there is no denial to the assertion of respondents that they got information of the confirmation order dated 05.08.2022 only on 31.08.2022.
8. In the absence of denial, it is clear that the appeal of the respondents was within limitation of 45 days from the date of knowledge, which was 31.08.2022 and therefore, the SDO was not under obligation to pass any order to condone the delay once the present petitioner did not contest the assertion made in the application that the respondents got information of the order dated 05.08.2022 only on 31.08.2022. Therefore, this Court does not find any error in action of the SDO in deciding the representation under Section 129(5) MPLRC on merits.
9. The other ground was raised as a ground of desperation by learned counsel for the petitioner that the SDO could not have remanded the matter Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 12/22/2025 7:44:25 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:69293 5 MP-5775-2024 and as per Section 129(7) MPLRC, he himself ought to have constituted a team if he was not agreeable to the demarcation already conducted. Though this argument is attractive in the first flush, but cannot be accepted upon deeper scrutiny. This is because the SDO has not given any finding that the demarcation proceedings carried out earlier were faulty or not. The SDO has simply held that the petitioner after receipt of demarcation proceedings has not considered the objections of the respondents and he was under obligation to consider objections of the respondents as per mandate of Section 129(4) MPLRC.
10. Since only violation of Section 129(4) MPLRC was found, therefore, the SDO correctly remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar to comply with Section 129(4) and to pass a order after considering the objections and taking a decision whether to confirm the demarcation or not.
11. Consequently, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the SDO. The petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE rj Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 12/22/2025 7:44:25 PM