Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ahfaz Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2026
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21380
1 WP-4476-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 23rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 4476 of 2025
AHFAZ KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amanulla Usmani - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Alok Agnihotri - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the respondent No.4 affirming the proceedings of demarcation, the present petition has bee filed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that an application under Section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code of 1959') was filed before the respondent No.6 seeking demarcation of of Khasra No.5/1/1 area 0.35 hectare situated at village Singhondi, Patwari Halka No.3, R.N. Palari, Tehsil Kevlari, District Seoni. A show notice was issued to the concerned parties and the respondent No.5 deputed Revenue Inspector/Patwari to demark the boundaries of the land as claimed by the respondent No.6. On 07.06.2023, the R.I./ Patwari prepared a spot panchnama by making forged signatures of the brother of the petitioner, who is actually an illiterate person and used to put his thumb impression on the papers. The spot panchnama report was prepared by playing fraud and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 17-03-2026 18:20:52 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21380 2 WP-4476-2025 forging the signatures of his brother. On the basis of the said disputed demarcation report, an application under Section 250 of the Code of 1959 was filed and an order has been passed against the petitioner for eviction from the unauthorized possession of the land vide order dated 31.05.2024. As soon as the petitioner came to know about the order passed on demarcation, he preferred objections under Section 129(5) of the Code of 1959 before the respondent No.4 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act pointing out that as soon as he got the knowledge with regard to passing of the demarcation order, he immediately applied for certified copy and thereafter filed the said application. Objections to the said application were filed by the respondent No.6. The petitioner also preferred an appeal against the proceedings initiated under under Section 250 of the Code of 1959 vide order dated 31.05.2024 before the respondent No.4. The said appeal is dismissed by the respondent No.4. Against which a second appeal is preferred before the respondent No.2, wherein notices were issued to the concerning parties and vide order dated 23.12.2024 the interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that as soon as the order confirmation of demarcation came to the knowledge, the petitioner applied for obtaining the certified copy of the complete record, but the same was not supplied to him. Therefore, he was not in a position to challenge the order of confirmation of demarcation within time. Therefore, some delay was caused, for which, the petitioner could not be held responsible. The aforesaid aspect was not considered by the other respondents/authorities. A specific ground Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 17-03-2026 18:20:52 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21380 3 WP-4476-2025 was taken that fraud was played with the petitioner as the forged signatures of his brother had been made on the spot panchnama. The petitioner's brother is an illiterate person and he used to put a thumb impression, but the authorities by playing fraud had shown his signatures on the spot panchnama and thereafter the order was passed. The said aspect was also not considered by the authorities. It is argued that fraud vitiates everything and limitation would not come in the way of challenging an order which is passed by playing fraud. Even otherwise, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was filed, but the same has not been considered by the authorities. Therefore, this petition is filed.
4. This Court vide order dated 02.02.2026 directed the State counsel to procure the record pertaining to the case in hand. He has produced the relevant record before this Court.
5. The spot panchnama which has been prepared shows the signature on the brother of the petitioner. There is a specific ground taken by the petitioner that his brother is an illiterate person and does not know how to sign the documents. He used to puts his thump impression on the documents. Therefore, the spot panchnama was wrongly prepared by the authorities. The notice which has been issued on 04.06.2023 although reflects the signatures of the petitioner, but it again reflects the signatures of the brother of the petitioner. The entire proceedings of preparing spot panchnama appears to be carried out in presence of the petitioner's brother. The spot panchnama does not reflect signatures of the petitioner and others. Therefore the entire proceedings of under Section 129 of the Code of 1959 are drawn up behind Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 17-03-2026 18:20:52 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21380 4 WP-4476-2025 the back of the petitioner. The Sub Divisional Officer has failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has rejected the application only on the grounds of delay. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was duly filed alongwith the objections raised under Section 129(5) of the Code of 1959. The Sub Divisional Officer should have considered the aforesaid aspect and should have condoned the delay and should have decided the matter on merits. On the said demarcation order, the proceedings under Section 250 of the Code of 1959 have been initiated and an order has been passed by the authorities. Once the basic order itself is without following the principles of natural justice and fair play, the subsequent proceedings drawn based upon the said order becomes unsustainable. The principle of natural justice and fair play are required to be followed by the authorities, as the order impugned passed by them carries civil consequences. The Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Krishnadatt Awasthy vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 248 considering the earlier judgments passed has held as under:-
"16. In this case, our primary focus is on procedural impropriety and in particular, the breach of the principles of natural justice. The process for arriving at a decision is equally significant as the decision itself. If the procedure is not 'fair', the decision cannot be possibly endorsed. The principles of natural justice as derived from common law which guarantee 'fair play in action' [Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248], has two facets which include rule against bias and the rule of fair hearing. Additionally, a reasoned order has also been regarded as a third facet of the principles of natural justice. [S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594; Siemens Engg. & Mfg. Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India, (1976) 2 SCC 981; CCI v. SAIL, (2010) 10 SCC 744; and Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496] and holds utmost significance in ensuring fairness of the process.
17. The first issue that falls for our consideration is whether the selection stands vitiated on the ground of violation of the rule against bias. It must Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 17-03-2026 18:20:52 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21380
5 WP-4476-2025 be borne in mind that when a statute specifies the procedure for administrative decision making, the principles of natural justice supplement but do not substitute the statutory procedure[AK Kraipak v Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262]. However, even if the statute does not provide for the administrative procedure, the authorities are bound to make decisions adherence to the principles of natural justice."
6. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders dated 31.05.2024 and 13.12.2024 passed by the authorities being unsustainable. They are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the authorities for reconsideration of the application filed by the private respondent under Section 129 of the Code of 1959 for demarcation. The authorities to conclude the proceedings within a period of 90 days from the date of certified copy of this order after following the due procedure of law and after providing opportunity of hearing to all the affected parties.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed off. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE sj Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 17-03-2026 18:20:52