Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35745
1 MP-7311-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 2 nd OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 7311 of 2023
SANJAY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Smriti Razadan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Tarun Pagade, learned Government Advocate for respondent
No.1 / State.
Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Shri Tarun Kushwah, learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 12.
ORDER
With the consent of parties, heard finally.
The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Indore Division, Indore whereby the appeal has been allowed the orders passed by the Tehsildar as well as Sub Divisional Officer recording concurrent finding have been set aside.
FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
02. On 08.07.2020, on an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 10-12-2025 09:14:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35745 2 MP-7311-2023 (hereinafter to be referred as 'MPLRC'), the Tehsildar, Mhow, District - Indore has passed an order for demarcation of agricultural land bearing Survey Nos.148, 150, 154 area 0.129, 0.121 & 0.264 hectare situated at Village Nawada, Tehsil - Mhow, District - Indore. The petitioner is claiming himself to be the owner of the aforesaid land.
2.1. Acting upon the said order, demarcation was done by the Revenue Officer (Patwari) on 29.07.2020. Thereafter, demarcation report along with panchnama was prepared and submitted before the Tehsildar. On the basis of said report, on 31.07.2020 the Tehsildar came to the conclusion that respondents No.2 to 12 are in illegal possession of land area 0.003 hectare in respect of Survey No.148 & 0.002 hectare in respect of Survey No.150. Thereafter, the aforesaid report was taken on record.
2.2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid demarcation, the petitioner approached the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mhow, District - Indore by way of an appeal under the provisions of 129(5) r/w section 32 of the MPLRC which was registered as Case No.6/A-74/2020-21. The learned Sub Divisional Officer has allowed the appeal and directed that a fresh demarcation be done in accordance with law.
2.3. In pursuant to the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, on 24.12.2020 a fresh demarcation was done after due service of notice to respondents No.2 to 12. The demarcation was done by a team comprising Revenue Inspector, Halka Patwari, Sub Inspector, Police Station - Kishanganj along with the police force and a panchanama was prepared in presence of Panch of the village. On the basis of this panchanma, it has been Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 10-12-2025 09:14:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35745 3 MP-7311-2023 gathered that respondents No.2 to 12 are in illegal possession / occupation of area 0.060 hectare of Survey No.148 and area 0.045 hectare of Survey No.150.
2.4. Thereafter, on 08.02.2021, the petitioner filed an application under Section 250 of the MPLRC before the Tehsildar seeking removal of encroachment done by the respondent No.2 to 12 which was registered as Revenue Case No.0009/A-70/2020-21.
2.5. In the said application, respondent No.2 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking dismissal of the case by stating that the same does not come within the radius of Section 250 of the MPLRC, however, after hearing the parties, the same was rejected.
2.6. Vide order dated 30.07.2021, the learned Tehsildar allowed the case and upheld the demarcation report and further directed for removal of encroachment.
2.7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondent No.2 preferred a first appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer under the provisions of Section 44(1) of the MPLRC, however, the demarcation report was not challenged.
2.8. The appeal filed respondent No.2 i.e. Case No.13/Appeal/2021- 22 came to be rejected vide order dated 02.02.2022 and the finding recorded by the Tehsildar has been upheld.
2.9. Being aggrieved by the order of Sub Divisional Officer, respondent No.2 filed a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 10-12-2025 09:14:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35745 4 MP-7311-2023 (Revenue) under the provisions of 44(2) of the MPLRC. Vide order dated 11.10.2023, learned Additional Commissioner has allowed the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the Tehsildar as well as Sub Divisional Officer. Hence, the present miscellaneous petition is before this Court.
ARGUMENTS BY THE PETITIONER
03. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner suffers from illegality and perversity. The learned Additional Commissioner has overlooked the fact that the process of demarcation of the land is based on factual position as visible at the time of demarcation and the same was done by the Patwari along with Sub Inspector - Kishanganj and in presence of panch. It is further submitted that finding of Additional Commissioner that the notices were not served to the respondents individually, if that be so, then how the respondents came before before the Tehsildar as well as Sub Divisional Officer to present themselves.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Additional Commissioner has erred in holding that respondent No.2 is staying in the constructed since the time of his father, therefore, factum of illegal possession is not proved. It is further submitted that the Additional Commissioner failed to consider the documents so produced by the petitioner before the Tehsildar i.e. field book, panchanama and the demarcation report. The petitioner is the titleholder of the land in question since long time, hence, the order of Additional Commissioner setting aside the orders of Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Officer. Hence, the impugned order be set Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 10-12-2025 09:14:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35745 5 MP-7311-2023 aside and the respondents be directed to remove the encroachment.
05. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed upon a decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jabalpur in the case of Murlidhar & Another v/s Board of Revenue & Others reported in 2013 (3) M.P.L.J. 184 . Reliance has also been placed in the case of Ramashankar S/o Chetram Vishnoi v/s The of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 Supreme (OnLine) (MP) 2208 and Manohar Singh & Others v/s Collector & Others (Miscellaneous Petition No.4914 of 2022). A prayer has been made that the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner, being unsustainable in the eyes of law be set aside.
ARGUMENT BY THE RESPONDENTS
06. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has argued in support of the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner and prayed for dismissal of the miscellaneous petition. He has placed reliance upon couple of judgments rendered in the cases of Nandram v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (Writ Petition No.16690 of 2024) & Brajmohan Sharma v/s Kaluram & Others reported in 2025 (1) RN 185 .
DISCUSSION & APPRECIATION
07. Before dealing with the case at hand it is apposite to deal with the provisions of MPLRC. For ready reference, Section 129 of the MPLRC is reproduced below:-
''129. Demarcation of boundaries of survey number or subdivision of survey number or block number or plot number-
(1) The Tahsildar may, on application of a party depute a Revenue Inspector or Nagar Sarvekshak to demarcate the boundaries of a survey number or of a sub-division of survey Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 10-12-2025 09:14:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35745 6 MP-7311-2023 number or of a block number or of a plot number and construct boundary marks thereon (2) The Revenue Inspector or Nagar Sarvekshak so deputed 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 a demarcation report to the Tahsildar in such manner as may be prescribed. The demarcation report shall also include the particulars of the possession, if any, of any person other than the Bhumi swami on the land demarcated.
(3) For carrying out the demarcation the Revenue Inspector or Nagar Sarvekshak may take the assistance of such agency and in such manner as may be prescribed.
(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 (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 subsection 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.
( 8 ) Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 44 and 50, no appeal or application for revision shall lie against any order Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 10-12-2025 09:14:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35745 7 MP-7311-2023 passed or proceedings taken under this section. (9) The State Government may make rules for regulating the procedure to be followed by the Tahsildar in demarcating the boundaries of a survey number or of a sub-division of survey number or of a block number or of a plot number prescribing the nature of the boundary marks to be used, and authorizing the levy of fees from the holders of land in demarcated survey number or subdivision or block number or plot number.'' [Emphasis Supplied]
08. From the aforesaid provisions of law, it can be gathered that against the order of demarcation, respondents were only having remedy to approach the Sub Divisional Officer, however, the same has not been done and the respondents directly approached the Additional Commissioner. Section 129(8) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (MPLRC) is a specific statutory provision that imposes a strict bar on appeals and revisions against any order or proceedings related to the demarcation of boundaries carried out under that section.
09. In the case of Nandlal (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:-
''9. In the present case, the sheet anchor of submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Additional Collector could not have vacated the stay granted on 30.05.2024 without hearing the present petitioners by taking up the matter before the next date fixed in presence of both the parties. However, when confronted with query by the Court as to how the very appeal before the Additional Collector was maintainable in view of the specific provisions of Section 129(8) of MPLRC, learned counsel for the petitioners could only submit that the demarcation proceedings were bad in law and Section 129(8) would not stop the petitioners from challenging illegal proceedings.
10. Section 129(8) of the MPLRC reads as under:
''Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 44 and 50. no appeal or application for revision shall lie against any order passed or proceedings taken under this section.'' Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 10-12-2025 09:14:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35745 8 MP-7311-2023
11. The order Annexure P/7 dated 23.01.2024 passed by the SDI is undisputedly an order disposing the application under Section 129(5) of the MPLRC filed by the present petitioners. The said application has been decided and thereafter no further remedy of appeal or revision under the MPLRC lies to the petitioners after suffering rejection under Section 129(5) of the MPLRC. 1 2 . In view of the specific and clear provisions of Section 129(8) of MPLRC, it is crystal clear that the revision filed by the petitioners before the Additional Collector itself was not maintainable, though the petitioners could have remedy else where. The orders of status-quo and stay of proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC passed during the course of a revision which itself was not maintainable cannot be protected by this Court by exercising the writ jurisdiction. In other words, by accepting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court cannot put to life the interim orders passed by the Additional Collector in a revision which itself was not maintainable as per the provisions of MPLRC.''
10. In the case of Manohar Singh (supra) , this Court has has held as under:-
''6. From the record, it is seen that no objection to the demarcation proceedings has ever been taken by the petitioners as provided under Section 129 (5) of the Code by approaching the Sub Divisional Officer for challenging the demarcation and the order confirming the same. If the petitioners felt that the demarcation proceedings are illegal for any reason whatsoever they ought to have challenged the same in accordance with law before the higher revenue authority. They have however not done so. The demarcation proceedings and the order passed therein have hence become final and their legality cannot be challenged in the present proceedings. This is the view which has been taken by this Court in Murlidhar and Another vs. Board of revenue MP and others (2013) 3 MPLJ 184 in which it has been held as under:
"15. As far as the second ground is concerned, the proceeding under section 129 for demarcation was conducted by the Tahsildar and had attained finality. If the petitioners had any grievance with regard to the said order they were required to challenge the same in accordance to law by filing an appeal or revision against the said order by invoking the provisions of section 44 or section 50 of M.P. Land Revenue Code. If the petitioners felt that the order passed under section 129 is without notice to them and without Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 10-12-2025 09:14:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35745 9 MP-7311-2023 hearing them, they should have challenged the said order in accordance to law. Having not done so, the order becomes a final order and based on the same if the possession of the respondents are restored, no error is committed by the Board of Revenue or the Additional Commissioner. That apart, it is a case of the petitioners that in the proceeding held under section 129 notice was not issued to them, however, the finding recorded is contrary and it shows that in spite of notice petitioner No. 1 did not appear and petitioner No. 2 did not receive the notice. Be it as it may be, once the order under section 129 had attained finality and based on the same action is taken, I see no reason to interfere into the matter."
7. In the aforesaid decision it was observed that if the petitioners therein felt that they had any grievance with regard to the demarcation they were required to challenge the same by filing an appeal or revision against the order by invoking the provisions of Section 44 or Section 50 of the Code. The same was held in view of the fact that at the relevant time an order of demarcation could be challenged by preferring an appeal or revision under Section 44 or 50 of the Code, 1959. After amendment of Section 129 of the Code by way of MP Amendment Act No.23 of 2018 with effect from 25.09.2018 challenge is required to be made by preferring an application under Section 129(5) of the Code before the Sub- Divisional Officer.
8. The principle however remains the same i.e. in case of having any grievance as regards demarcation proceedings and the order passed therein, they are required to be challenged before the higher authority under the provisions of the Code and if the same is not done, they become final and if proceedings are instituted on the basis of those demarcation proceedings by filing an application under Section 250 of the Code their legality cannot be challenged in such proceedings.''
11. In view of the aforesaid two decisions rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, it is crystal clear that the against the order of demarcation, the respondents ought to have approached the Sub Divisional Officer, however, the same has not been done, for which no explanation has been offered by the respondents.
12. Pausing here for a moment, it would be appropriate to deal with the provisions of Section 250 of the MPLRC, same is reproduced below:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 10-12-2025 09:14:43NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35745 10 MP-7311-2023 ''250. Reinstatement of bhumiswami improperly dispossessed.-
(1) For the purpose of this section and section 250-A bhumiswami shall include occupancy tenant and Government lessee.
(1-a) if a bhumiswami is dispossessed of the land otherwise than in due course of law or if any person unauthorisedly continues in possession of any land of the bhumiswami to the use of which such person has ceased to be entitled under any provision of this Code, the bhumiswami or his successor-in-interest may apply to the Tahsildar for restoration of the possession, --
(b) in case of a bhumiswami not covered by clause (a), within two years from the date of dispossession or from the date on which possession of such person becomes unauthorised, as the case may be.
(1-b) The Tahsildar shall on coming to know that a bhumiswami has been dispossessed of his land otherwise than in due course of law, suo motu start proceedings under this section. (2) The Tahsildar shall, after making an enquiry into the respective claims of the parties, decide the application and when he orders the restoration of the possession to the bhumiswami, put him in possession of the land.
(2-a) The proceedings started under this section shall after receipt of reply from the other party, continue from day to day unless for reasons to be recorded in writing a longer adjournment is considered necessary and in that case a copy of the order sheet containing the reasons for such adjournment shall be sent to the Collector.
(3) The Tahsildar may at any stage of the enquiry pass an interim order for handing over the possession of the land to the bhumiswami, occupancy tenant or Government lessee, as the case may be, if he finds that he was dispossessed by the opposite party within six months prior to the submission of the application or commencement of suo motu proceedings under this section. In such case the opposite party shall, if necessary, be ejected under orders of the Tahsildar.
(4) When an interim order has been passed under sub-section (3) the opposite party may be required by the Tahsildar to execute a bond for such sum as the Tahsildar may deem fit for abstaining from taking possession of land until the final order is passed by the Tahsildar.
(5) If the person executing a bond is found to have entered into or taken possession of the land in contravention of the bond, the Tahsildar may forfeit the bond in whole or in part and may recover such amount as an arrear of land revenue.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 10-12-2025 09:14:43NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35745 11 MP-7311-2023 (6) If the order passed under sub-section (2) is in favour of the applicant the Tahsildar shall also award compensation to be paid to the applicant by the opposite party which shall be at the prorata rate of [two thousand rupees] per hectare per year. (7) The compensation awarded under this section shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue.
(8) when an order has been passed under sub-section (2) for the restoration of the possession to the bhumiswami the tahsildar may require the opposite. Party to execute a bond for such sum as the Tahsildar may deem fit for abstaining from taking possession of the land and contravention of the order.
(9) Where an order has been passed under sub-section (2) for the restoration of the possession of the bhmiswami, the opposite party shall also be liable to fine which may extend to twenty per centum of the market value of such land.'' CONCLUSION
13. After going through the record of the case, this Court finds that the matter has surpassed the radius of the Section 250 of the MPLRC as now the issue of title is involved. On some of land, for which the petitioner is claiming himself to be the owner, construction has also been made. Hence, this Court cannot decide the issue of title as the same is liable to be decided by the Civil Court after adducing the evidence.
14. In view of the above, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner is hereby affirmed. However, so far as the agricultural land and land where the waste is lying as directed by the Tehsildar is in para 7(ख) to the extent 'औक ं ार पता दे वजी, केशर पता आशाराम, ह रालाल पता दे व जी ारा घुडा, कचरा डालकर अवैध क जा कये है ।' is concerned, the same is hereby upheld and the respondents / revenue authorities are directed to take appropriate measures to remove the encroachment, as done by the illegal occupier, strictly in accordance with the provisions as contained in MPLRC, as early as possible.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 10-12-2025 09:14:43NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35745 12 MP-7311-2023
14. With the aforesaid observation, Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed in part. However, the liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court raising the issue relating to title.
(ALOK AWASTHI) JUDGE Ravi Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 10-12-2025 09:14:43