Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 October, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27162
1 MP-5638-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 28th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 5638 of 2025
RAJU SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri K.N. Gupta- Senior Advocate with Shri Somyadeep Dwivedi,
Shri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi and Shri Suhani Dhariwal- Advocate for
petitioners.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya - Government Advocate for respondent-State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.09.2025 passed in RCS No. 24-A/2016 by the XII Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gwalior (M.P.), whereby the objection raised by the petitioners/plaintiffs against the Commissioner's report submitted by the Revenue Inspector has been rejected by the learned Trial Court.
In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintiffs instituted a civil suit for declaration, mandatory injunction, compensation, and recovery of possession against the defendants, asserting that they are joint owners and possessors of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 24, area 0.215 hectares, and Survey No. 24 Min, area 0.125 hectares, situated at Village Sirol, Morar, Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 10/31/2025 10:11:45 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27162 2 MP-5638-2025 District Gwalior.The said land was purchased by the plaintiffs through a registered sale deed executed in the year 2001. The plaintiffs constructed a boundary wall 6 feet in height with a 3 feet deep foundation. Concrete pillars of 8 feet height were raised and an iron gate measuring 11x6 feet was installed. On 14.09.2012, defendant No. 2 marked the boundary walls of the plaintiffs' land and adjoining properties. Upon inquiry, the plaintiffs were informed that the defendants intended to widen the road situated in front of the plaintiffs' land. The plaintiffs submitted a representation before defendant No. 1, stating that no prior notice had been issued and no action should be taken without affording them an opportunity of hearing. However, on 01.03.2013, at about 01:00 p.m., officials of the defendants, accompanied by armed police personnel, allegedly demolished the boundary wall without any notice or prior intimation. Aggrieved by such action, the plaintiffs filed Writ Petition No. 1582/2013 before this Court, which was disposed of with a direction to the defendants to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the plaintiffs. Liberty was also granted to the plaintiffs to file a civil suit for compensation or recovery of possession of the land over which the defendants had constructed the road.
Defendants filed written statements and denied all averments. Defendants/ respondent No.1 filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC before the Trial court in which it was alleged that the plaintiffs have claimed that the demolished boundary wall was a part of survey No.24 whereas the road constructed by the defendants by removing the encroachment in place of boundary is a part of Survey No.20 which is owned Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 10/31/2025 10:11:45 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27162 3 MP-5638-2025 and possessed by defendant No.2, therefore a commission may be issued for| conducting demarcation of the plaintiffs land. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed reply of the said application. The said application was allowed.
It is apposite to mention here that when notice for the demarcation (Ex.P.8) was issued by the Trial Court. In the said notice, clear directions were issued to the defendants to click photos, prepare panchanama, map and make videography of the entire proceedings of the demarcation but the said directions were not followed by the defendants. Consequently, on 19/07/2025 demarcation proceedings was carried out and on 23/07/2025, Revenue Inspector, Circle-Mahira, City Centre Gwalior submitted commissioner report before the Trial Court.
Plaintiffs filed objection against commissioner report before the Trial Court. Thereafter, defendants filed their reply. and their objection was rejected by the Trial Court.
Being aggrieved by the impugned order, petitioner filed this petition with submission that impugned order passed by the trial Court is highly perverse and against the settled principle of law. It is submitted that plaintiffs submitted detailed objections against the commissioner report submitted by the Revenue Inspector but while passing the impugned order learned Trial Court has not considered the said objections merely giving opportunity to the plaintiffs to cross examine commissioner witness which does not give legality to an illegal and void demarcation proceedings. It is further submitted that map annexed with the demarcation report the distance has been mentioned in "JARIB" whereas in the entire demarcation proceedings Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 10/31/2025 10:11:45 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27162 4 MP-5638-2025 JARIB was not even used which is evident from the reply to the objections submitted by defendant No.1 wherein it has been admitted that ROVER machine was used which is not permissible under the provisions of MPLRC. Hence, it is prayed that impugned order be set-aside.
On the other hand, counsel for respondents supported the impugned order and prayed for rejection of the petition.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.
Plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration, mandatory injunction, compensation and recovery of possession against the defendants and pleaded that plaintiffs were owner and possession holder of an agricultural land bearing survey No. 24, area 0.215 hectares and Survey No. 24 Min, area 0.125 hectares situated at Village Sirol, Morar, District Gwalior. During pendency of the suit, defendants filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC in which it is alleged that plaintiffs claimed that demolished boundary wall was part of survey No.24 whereas the road constructed by the defendants by removing the encroachment in place of boundary which is a part of Survey No.20 which is owned and possessed by defendant No.2. Thereafter, Trial Court issued commission. Commissioner submitted the report before the Trial Court which is against the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed an objection that Commissioner has not demarcated the land on the correct principle of demarcation. There were permanent marks available from where he ought to have demarcated the land. It is further submitted that in MPLRC there is no provision for conducting demarcation by ROVER machine as it is Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 10/31/2025 10:11:45 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27162 5 MP-5638-2025 only mentioned in letter issued by the Joint Commissioner-Bhu-Abhilekh M.P but it is not mentioned in MPLRC. Since no proper demarcation took place, therefore, suit property could not be ascertained. The Trial Court rejected the objection on the ground that Commissioner had measured the land in accordance with the rules of demarcation, therefore, no fault can be found with the Commissioner's report and plaintiffs have opportunity to cross examine the Commissioner.
"Section 124 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 provides construction of boundary marks of villages and survey numbers or plot numbers. Aforesaid provision reads as under:
Construction of boundary marks of villages and survey numbers or plot numbers.- (1) Boundaries of all villages shall be fixed and demarcated by permanent boundary marks. (2) The State Government may, in respect of any village, by notification, order that the boundaries of all survey numbers or plot numbers shall also be fixed and demarcated by boundary marks. (3) Such boundary marks shall, subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, be of such specification and shall be constructed and maintained in such manner as may be prescribed. (4) Where the rules prescribed boundary marks of a specification different from that prevailing in any village, the new specification shall not be enforced in such village except upon application to a Tehsildar made by not less than half the number of holders of land in the village. When such application is made, the Tehsildar shall have new boundary marks constructed throughout the village and shall distribute the cost thereof proportionately among the holders of land in the village in accordance with rules made under this Code. The share of each holder shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. (5) Every holder of land shall be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the permanent boundary and survey marks erected thereon. Subsection (2) of Section 124 of the Code provides that the State Government may, in respect of any village by notification, order that the boundaries of all survey numbers or plot numbers shall be fixed and demarcated by boundary marks. Sub-section (1) of Section 124 of the Code provides that boundaries of all villages shall be fixed and demarcated by permanent boundary marks. The aforesaid provisions are specific which provide two types of boundaries, one of village and another of all survey number or plot numbers in the village. The State has also framed rules regarding boundaries and boundary marks, Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 10/31/2025 10:11:45 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27162
6 MP-5638-2025 survey marks. Rule 2 of the aforesaid Rules provides boundaries of all villages and boundaries of survey numbers or plot numbers in villages notified under Sub-section (2) of Section 124 shall be demarcated by: (a) an unploughed strip 1.50 metre in width; or (b) a dhura .50 metre high, 1.50 metre wide at the base and 1.00 metre at the top; or (c) a strong fence or wall; or (d) boundary stones. Rule 3 provides that near each corner of a survey number or plot number shall be erected two mounds or teelas pointing along the field boundaries. The Rule 9 provides that between the 1st November and the 15th December each year, the patel and patwari shall jointly inspect every boundary or survey mark in each survey number or plot number in the village and shall prepare a statement in Form A of defective or missing marks, and shall give a written notice in Form B to the holders concerned. Rule 13 provides how construction and maintenance of boundary marks in the village shall be regulated.
Aforesaid provisions specifically provide two types of boundary marks, one of village and another of each survey number in the village. The Revenue Officer performing work of demarcation of plot ought to have firstly ascertained whether there are permanent marks as per Section 124 of the Code or not and in absence of such boundary marks, he was required to ascertain the correct boundaries of nearby survey numbers and after ascertaining the boundaries of such lands, three sides of disputed property, he ought to have ascertained the correct location of disputed land and only thereafter he ought to have submitted his report in the Court.
But in the present case, it appears that aforesaid procedure has not been followed. In absence of which, the Trial Court ought to have issued a fresh commission. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the objection filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs in respect of Commissioner's report. Accordingly, objection of the petitioners is allowed. The Commissioner's report is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court with the following directions :
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 10/31/2025 10:11:45 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27162
7 MP-5638-2025
(i) The Trial Court shall issue fresh commission to ascertain the exact location of the disputed land.
(ii) The Commissioner shall demarcate the land taking into consideration the Provision of Section 124 of the Code and the rules made thereunder, and thereafter submit a fresh report.
(iii)The said exercise be conducted in the presence of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants.
(iv) The fees of newly appointed Commissioner shall be borne by the petitioners/plaintiffs.
(v) After receiving Commissioner's report, the Trial Court shall proceed in the matter accordance with law.
With the aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed of. It is appreciated that Revenue Officer-Shri Kuldeepak Dubey appeared before the Court and assisted the Court to conclude this case.
No order as to costs.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE Prachi Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 10/31/2025 10:11:45 AM