Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mishri Lal Dhemar vs Khub Singh Meena on 7 October, 2025
1 WRIT PETITION No. 31828 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 7th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 31828 of 2024
MISHRI LAL DHEMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
KHUB SINGH MEENA
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Siddharth Sijoria - learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.
ORDER
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally.
2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 12/09/2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, whereby, the second appeal preferred by the respondent against the order dated 04/03/2020 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Radhogarh, District Guna has been allowed.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the respondent herein moved an application under section 250 of MPLRC before the Tehsildar, Maksudangarh, District Guna seeking dispossession of the petitioners from part of the land bearing survey No.84/1/1B situated at village Godhiya, which was alleged to be under encroachment of the petitioners over area admeasuring 0.627 hectares. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 10/9/2025 5:56:41 PM 2 WRIT PETITION No. 31828 of 2024 The said application filed by the respondent came to be allowed by the Tehsildar vide order dated 02/11/2019. The order dated 02/11/2019 was thereafter challenged by the petitioners in first appeal under section 44 of MPLRC before the Sub Divisional Officer, Radhogarh, District Guna which came to be allowed vide order dated 04/03/2020, whereby, order dated 02/11/2019 passed by the Tehsildar was set aside. The respondent aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 04/03/2020 preferred a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, which has been allowed vide order dated 12/09/2023 which is impugned in the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier in respect of the same land respondent moved an application under section 250 of MPLRC before the Tehsildar, Maksudangarh which came to be rejected vide order dated 06/02/2019 (Annexure P/4) and once an application under section 250 of MPLRC filed by the respondent stood rejected, the second application filed by the respondent for the same cause of action was not maintainable. He further submits that order dated 02/11/2019 was passed by the Tehsildar based upon demarcation report to which petitioners were not noticed and, therefore, the said demarcation could not have formed basis for passing of the order of dispossession against the petitioners. The aforesaid aspect was rightly considered by the first appellate authority i.e Sub Divisinal Officer and therefore, first appeal was allowed vide order dated 04/03/2020 which order ought not to have been interfered with by the second Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 10/9/2025 5:56:41 PM 3 WRIT PETITION No. 31828 of 2024 appellate authority by passing the impugned order. Learned counsel further submits that the civil suit came to be filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners bearing civil suit No. 46-A/2010 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 23/12/2011, wherein finding was recorded by the learned trial court that the petitioners herein have failed to prove their ownership or possession over the land possessed by them. In view whereof, the order of dispossession could not have been passed. Accordingly, he prays for quashment of the order dated 12/09/2023.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that order dated 23/12/2011 passed in civil suit No. 46-A/2010 was assailed in a regular first appeal before the 8th Additional District Judge, Guna which was disposed of vide order dated 12/04/2018 and liberty was granted to the petitioners as well as respondent to seek remedy under section 250 of MPLRC and, therefore, judgment and decree dated 23/12/2011 was no impediment on the right of the respondent. He further submits that while rejecting the earlier proceedings under section 250 of MPLRC vide order dated 06/02/2019 (Annexure P/4), the Tehsildar himself granted liberty to the respondent to file an application afresh after getting land demarcated. He further submits that after conducting demarcation proceedings, the second application was filed by him before the Tehsildar which was in view of liberty already granted in the earlier proceedings and, therefore, ground raised by the petitioners that second application was not maintainable is baseless. By referring to the order dated 02/11/2019 passed by the Tehsildar uploaded on ERP on the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 10/9/2025 5:56:41 PM 4 WRIT PETITION No. 31828 of 2024 application filed by the respondent under section 250 of MPLRC, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the same was based upon demarcation report and the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector which categorically reveals the possession of the petitioners on the land of the respondent. Accordingly, the order dated 02/11/2019 was passed in the proceedings before the Tehsildar. The petitioners were duly noticed but they did not appear. The Sub Divisional Officer erred in interfering in the order dated 02/11/2019 passed by Tehsildar while allowing the first appeal filed by the petitioners which error stand corrected by the second appellate authority vide order dated 12/09/2023. By referring to the findings recorded by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division Gwalior in the order dated 12/09/2023, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the said order recorded specific findings that inspite of service of notice, the petitioners did not appear before the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar proceeded in accordance with law on the basis of demarcation report so also the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector. The findings of the fact recorded in the impugned order remained uncontroverted even in the pleadings of the writ petition. He further submits that demarcation of the said land was done by the team constituted by the Sub Divisional Officer himself on the direction issued by the Collector. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the instant writ petition.
6. No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for the parties. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 10/9/2025 5:56:41 PM 5 WRIT PETITION No. 31828 of 2024
7. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material available on record.
8. Record indicates that the order dated 02/11/2019 passed by the Tehsildar directing for dispossession of the petitioners under section 250 of MPLRC has not been placed on record by the petitioners in the instant writ petition. Copy of the aforesaid order has been uploaded on ERP by the learned counsel for the respondent.
9. Perusal of the judgment and decree dated 23/12/2011 passed in civil suit No. 46-A/2010 reveals that by said decree, the suit as well as cross suit filed by the petitioners as well as respondent were rejected. Further perusal of the judgment and decree dated 12/04/2018 passed by the 8th Additional District Judge, District Guna against said order dated 23/12/2011 reflects that the respondent as well as petitioners were extended liberty to get their grievances ventiliated under section 250 of MPLRC. The first application under section 250 of MPLRC was rejected by the Tehsildar, Maksudangarh, District Guna vide order dated 06/02/2019, but the perusal thereof (Annexure P/4) clearly reveals that liberty was granted to the respondent to move an application under section 250 of MPLRC afresh if on demarcation, the encroachment of the petitioners herein was found on the land of the respondent. The aforesaid order dated 06/02/2019 passed by the Tehsildar, Maksudangarh has not been challenged by the petitioners and, therefore, the same has attained finality. Thus, the ground raised by petitioner as regards maintainability Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 10/9/2025 5:56:41 PM 6 WRIT PETITION No. 31828 of 2024 of the application filed by the respondent under section 250 of MPLRC, 1959 pales into insignificance.
10. Perusal of the order dated 02/11/2019 passed by the Tehsildar, Maksundangarh against the petitioners categorically record that inspite of service of notice, the petitioners remained absent and, therefore, they were proceeded ex- parte. Perusal of the order dated 02/11/2019 passed by the Tehsildar, Maksudangarh further reveals that the respondent herein, placed on record copies of demarcation report, panchanama proceedings and the notice and by taking into consideration the same, the Tehsildar, Maksudangarh concluded that the petitioners herein have encroached upon 0.627 hectates of land bearing survey No. 84/1/1B situated at village Godhiya. Accordingly, order of dispossession of the petitioners was passed. The stand of learned counsel for the petitioners that they were not noticed in the demarcation proceedings and, therefore, the said demarcation could not have formed basis for passing of the dispossession order dated 02/11/2019 deserves to be rejected for the reason that the petitioners herein have chosen not to challenge the demarcation proceedings in terms of section 129 of MPLRC and, therefore, in the instant writ petition pertaining to proceedings under section 250 of MPLRC it is not open for the petitioner to question the demarcation proceedings as has been held by this Court in the case of Murlidhar and Anr. vs. Board of Revenue M.P. & Ors. reported in 2013 (3) MPLJ 184.
11. Para 15 of the judgment in the case of Murlidhar (supra) reads as under :- Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 10/9/2025 5:56:41 PM 7 WRIT PETITION No. 31828 of 2024
"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 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."
12. In the first appeal before Sub Divisional Officer filed by the petitioners, the order dated 02/11/2019 passed by the Tehsildar was interfered with by the Sub Divisional Officer on the ground that the petitioners were not afforded opportunity of hearing by the Tehsildar, however, the said finding has been turned down by the second appellate authority in the order dated 12/09/2023 categorically observing that from perusal of the record it is clear that inspite of issuance of notice, petitioners did not appear before the Tehsildar. Even in the instant writ petition, the petitioners have not taken specific ground that finding recorded by the Tehsildar in the order dated 02/11/2019 "that inspite of service of notice, the petitioners did not appear" is incorrect. The second appellate authority after perusal of the original record concluded that proper enquiry / demarcation was conducted prior to passing Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 10/9/2025 5:56:41 PM 8 WRIT PETITION No. 31828 of 2024 of the order dated 02/11/2019 by the Tehsildar. The demarcation report was submitted by the team constituted by the Sub Divisional Officer in terms of the order passed by the Collector.
13. In view of above, no indulgence is warranted in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Consequently, the instant writ petition being devoid of merits and substance is hereby dismissed.
14. All interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(AMIT SETH) JUDGE Durgekar* Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 10/9/2025 5:56:41 PM