Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lalit Maheshwari vs Meena Devi on 12 January, 2026
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2565
1 WP-14630-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 12 th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 14630 of 2025
LALIT MAHESHWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
MEENA DEVI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Saurabh Sunder, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3.
Shri Utkarsh Pachori, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
Shri Vineet Singh, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed against the order dated 13/03/2025 passed by the respondent No.11/SDO, whereby the objection of the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 129(5) of MPLRC, 1959 has been rejected on the ground of delay.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that respondents No.1 to 3 have preferred an application under Section 129 of MPLRC before the concerned Tehsildar seeking demarcation of suit land. It is submitted that the concerned Tehsildar directed the Revenue Inspector/Patwari to conduct the demarcation of the suit lands. Thereafter, the Revenue Inspector prepared a panchnama and a report, whereby he found that the petitioners and respondents 5 to 10 are encroachers over the 0.033 hectare area of the suit lands. Respondents 1 to 3 filed an application under Section 250 of MPLRC seeking vacant possession of the alleged encroachment on the 8 shops of suit lands. Thereafter, petitioners preferred an Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Signing time: 12-01-2026 17:03:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2565 2 WP-14630-2025 application under Section 129(5) MPLRC before respondent No.11 against the aforesaid demarcation proceedings along with an application for condonation of delay. Respondent No.11 passed the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the petitioners on the ground of delay.
3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the explanation for delay in approaching the concerned officer was given by the petitioners. The Sub Divisional Officer in the impugned order has also dealt with and has not condoned the delay of 29 days. The Sub Divisional Officer should have considered the application and should have taken a lenient view to condone the delay in approaching him and should have considered and decided the matter on merits. It is the case of the petitioners that in pursuance to the demarcation proceedings is affirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer, the respondents have proceeded and filed an application under Section 250 of MPLRC for removal of encroachment. Against which the present petition has been filed.
4. The respondent's counsel submits that the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected by the authorities but he fairly submits that the proceedings under Section 250 MPLRC are still pending. The fact remains that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer affirming the demarcation proceedings has been passed without considering the merits of the matter and objection raised by the petitioners. It is dismissed on the ground of delay of 29 days.
5. Under these circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to condone the delay of 29 days and allow the application filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay and relegate the matter back to the Sub Divisional Officer for reconsideration of the application filed by the petitioners under Section 129(5) of Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Signing time: 12-01-2026 17:03:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2565 3 WP-14630-2025 MPLRC on merits.
6. Counsel for the State has no objection to the aforesaid proposition and he fairly submits that the consideration on merits is not reflected on the impugned order.
7. Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 13/03/2025 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Sub Divisional Officer i.e. respondent No.11 for reconsideration of application filed under Section 129(5) of MPLRC on merits. The entire exercise be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
8. Till the final decision is taken by the Sub Divisional Officer on application filed under Section 129(5) of MPLRC, the proceeding initiated by the respondent under Section 250 of MPLRC shall be kept in abeyance.
9. The respondents are at liberty to raise all the objections before the Sub Divisional Officer.
10. In above terms, the petition is disposed of . No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE RS Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Signing time: 12-01-2026 17:03:50