Madhya Pradesh High Court
Basant vs Sukh Ram on 22 December, 2025
1
MP Nos. 3488 of 2023, 3485 of 2023 & 3490 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
MISC. PETITION No. 3488 of 2023
BHAGWAT SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
SUKH RAM
WITH
MISC. PETITION No. 3485 of 2023
KODULAL YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
SARDAR SINGH
MISC. PETITION No. 3490 of 2023
BASANT AND OTHERS
Versus
SUKH RAM
..................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay - Advocate for the petitioner in all the
petitions.
Shri Nand Kishore Tiwari - Advocate for respondents in all the petitions.
..................................................................................................
ORDER
(Reserved on 05.12.2025) (Pronounced on 22.12.2025) These petitions have been filed on identical facts and identical grounds, therefore they are being decided by this common order.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 22-12-2025 17:57:18 2MP Nos. 3488 of 2023, 3485 of 2023 & 3490 of 2023 For the sake of convenience, reference to documents and facts is being taken from MP No. 3488 of 2023.
2. An application was filed by the respondent before the Tehsildar under Section 250 M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (MPLRC) on the assertion that a demarcation has taken place in the year 2018 after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the neighbouring landowners and as per the findings of the demarcation some portion of land owned by the respondent has been found to be in possession and occupation of the petitioners and therefore, by filing application under Section 250 MPLRC, prayer was made to dispossess the present petitioner from the land owned by the respondent.
3. The aforesaid application was contested by the respondent on the assertion that they are not in any encroachment or illegal possession over any land owned by the respondent and that they are in possession since last more than 40 years on the land in question and that their possession is a well settled possession which can be verified from the revenue records. The Tehsildar in view of the rival stand of the parties took evidence of both the parties and some witnesses were presented from the side of the respondents who alleged to be landowners and some witnesses were produced from the side of the petitioners who were alleged to be encroachers. It is vehemently argued by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 22-12-2025 17:57:18 3 MP Nos. 3488 of 2023, 3485 of 2023 & 3490 of 2023 counsel for the petitioners that though the witnesses produced by the petitioners were cross-examined by the other side but the witnesses produced by the petitioner were not permitted to be cross-examined by the petitioners' counsel because these witnesses had deposed on the date i.e. 13.12.2018 when the counsel for the petitioners was not present and the deposition sheets only mention that there has been no cross-examination of the witness without mentioning any reason, that is whether the counsel has refused to carry out cross-examination, or was absent. No reason was not mentioned in the deposition sheet because in fact the counsel was not available and in the order sheet of 13-12-2018 which is the date on which deposition of applicant witnesses took place, there is no appearance of the counsel for the petitioners and there is appearance of only counsel for the other side, who was the applicant before the Tehsildar.
4. Per contra, it is vehemently argued by the counsel for the respondents that as per the demarcation report the petitioners were found to be in encroachment over land of the respondent who is the landowner and Section 250 MPLRC gives power and authority for reistatement of possession of Bhumiswami who has been improperly dispossessed from the land. It is further contended that the petitioners cannot take any benefit of they being Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 22-12-2025 17:57:18 4 MP Nos. 3488 of 2023, 3485 of 2023 & 3490 of 2023 in possession for last 40 years also as alleged by them, though not admitted by the respondent because now after amendment in Section 250 MPLRC w.e.f.
25-09-2018, even the time limit of dispossession within 2 years to invoke jurisdiction under Section 250 MPLRC, has been removed and now there is no time limit for which application can be maintained under Section 250 MPLRC from the date of dispossession. On these assertions it is prayed to dismiss the petitions.
5. Upon hearing counsel for the rival parties and on perusal of record it is seen that the issue involved is whether the jurisdiction under Section 250 MPLRC could be invoked in this case and whether the proper procedure was followed by the Tehsildar in carrying out those proceedings.
6. As per Section 250 MPLRC the following provision has been made which is w.e.f. 25-09-2018:-
"250. Reinstatement of Bhumiswami improperly dispossessed.-(1) The Tahsildar shall,-
(a) on application of a Bhumiswami or his successor-in-inter-est who has been improperly dispossessed, issue a show cause notice to the person occupying Bhumiswami's land to explain the grounds of his possession and make such enquiry as he thinks fit; or
(b) on coming to know that a Bhumiswami has been improperly dispossessed, on his own motion start proceedings under clause (a).
(2) If after the enquiry the Tahsildar finds that the Bhumiswami has been improperly dispossessed, he shall order the restoration of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 22-12-2025 17:57:18 5 MP Nos. 3488 of 2023, 3485 of 2023 & 3490 of 2023 possession to the Bhumiswami and also put him in possession of the land.
(3) The Tahsildar may, at any stage of the enquiry, pass an interim order to the person occupying the land to hand-over its possession to the Bhumiswami, if he finds that the Bhumiswami was dispossessed by opposite party within six months prior to. the submission of the application or commencement of suo motu proceedings under this section.
(4) The person against whom an interim order has been passed under sub-section (3) 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 and if the person executing a bond is found to have entered into or taken possession of the land 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.
(5) Where the Tahsildar orders restoration of possession of land to the Bhumiswami under sub-section (2), the Tahsildar shall also award compensation to be paid to the Bhumiswami by the opposite party for the period of his unauthorised possession and such compensation shall be calculated at the pro rata rate of ten thousand rupees per hectare per year. The compensation awarded under this section shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue.
(6) When an order has been passed under sub-section (2) for the restoration of possession of land 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 in contravention of the order.
(7) Where an order has been passed under sub-section (2) for the restoration of the possession of land to the Bhumiswami, the opposite party shall also be liable to fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees.
(8) If any person continues in unauthorised occupation or possession of land for more than seven days after the date of order for restoration of possession under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), then without prejudice to the compensation payable under sub-section (5) or the fine under sub-section (7), the Sub-Divisional Officer shall cause him to be apprehended and shall send him with a warrant to be confined in a civil prison for a period of fifteen days in case of first Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 22-12-2025 17:57:18 6 MP Nos. 3488 of 2023, 3485 of 2023 & 3490 of 2023 order for restoration of possession and shall cause him to be apprehended and shall send him with a warrant to be confined in such prison for a period of three months in case of second or subsequent orders for restoration of the possession to such Bhumiswami:
Provided that no action under this section shall be taken unless a notice is issued calling upon such person to appear before the Sub- Divisional Officer on a day to be specified in the notice and to show cause why he should not be committed to the civil prison:
Provided further that the Sub-Divisional Officer may order the release of such person from detention before the expiry of the period mentioned in the warrant if he is satisfied that the un-authorized possession has been vacated."
7. Prior thereto the earlier Section 250 MPLRC was as under:-
"250, Reinstatement of Bhoomiswami improperly dispossessed.-[(1) For the purpose of this section and section 250-A Bhoomiswami shall include occupancy tenant and Government lessee.] (1-a) If a Bhoomiswami 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 Bhoomiswami to the use of which such person has ceased to be entitled under any provision of this Code, the Bhoomiswami or his successor in interest may apply to the Tahsildar for restoration of the possession,-
(a) in case of Bhoomiswami belonging to a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub-section (6) of section 165,-
(i) before the 1st July, 1978 in cases of unauthorised dispossession prior to the 1st July, 1976; and
(ii) in any other cases within five years from the date of disposses-sion or from the date on which the possession of such person becomes unauthorised, as the case may be;
(b) in case of a Bhoomiswami not covered by clause (a), within two years from the date of dispossession or from the date on which posses-sion of such person becomes unauthorised, as the case may be].
(1-b) The Tahsildar shall on coming to know that a Bhoomiswami 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 22-12-2025 17:57:18 7 MP Nos. 3488 of 2023, 3485 of 2023 & 3490 of 2023 orders the restoration of the possession to the Bhoomiswami, 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 Bhoomiswami, 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.
(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 in contravention of the order.] (9) Where an order has been passed under sub-section (2) for the restoration of the possession of the Bhumiswami, the opposite party shall also be liable to fine which may extend to [twenty per centum of the market value of such land]."
Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 22-12-2025 17:57:18 8MP Nos. 3488 of 2023, 3485 of 2023 & 3490 of 2023
8. As per the earlier provision there was a time limit for the Bhumiswami to pray for restoration of possession under Section 250 MPLRC if he had been dispossessed within 2 years prior to date of making application. Now the time limit of 2 years has been removed by the amendment w.e.f. 25-09-2018.
9. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallavva and Another Vs. Kalsammanavara Kalamma (Civil Appeal 14803 of 2024) has held as under in para - 31:-
"........ It is, therefore, obvious that when the suit is based on title for possession, once the title is established on the basis of relevant documents and other evidence unless the defendant proves adverse possession for the prescriptive period, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited. [See: Indira v. Arumugam and Another reported in (1998) 1 SCC 614.]
10. In the case of Indira Vs. Arumugam, 1998 (1) SCC 614, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under :-
4. The aforesaid reasoning of the learned Judge, with respect, cannot be sustained as it proceeds on the assumption as if old Article 142 of the earlier Limitation Act was in force wherein the plaintiff who based his case on title had to prove not only title but also possession within 12 years of the date of the suit.
The said provision of law has undergone a metamorphic sea change as we find under the Limitation Act, 1963 Article 65 which reads as under:
xx xx xx
5. It is, therefore, obvious that when the suit is based on title for possession, once the title is established on the basis of relevant documents and other evidence unless the defendant proves adverse possession for the prescriptive period, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited. Unfortunately, this aspect of the matter was missed by the learned Judge and, therefore, the entire reasoning for disposing of the second appeal has got vitiated. Only on that short ground and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the question of law framed by the learned Judge for disposing of the second appeal, this appeal is allowed. The impugned decision rendered is set aside and the second appeal is restored Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 22-12-2025 17:57:18 9 MP Nos. 3488 of 2023, 3485 of 2023 & 3490 of 2023 to the file of the High Court with a request to proceed further with the hearing of the appeal with respect to the substantial question aforementioned in accordance with law. No costs.
11. In Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak Vs. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak, 20004 (3) SCC 376, it has been held as under :-
6. At this stage, it is important to bear in mind that partition is really a process by which a joint enjoyment of the property is transformed into an enjoyment severally. In the case of partition, each co-sharer has an antecedent title and, therefore, there is no conferment of a new title. (See Mulla: Transfer of Property Act, 9th Edn., p. 77.) In the circumstances, the appellants cannot be heard to say that they became the owners of the property only when the partition deed was executed on 29-11-1965. Lastly, the facts abovementioned show that the appellants had asserted not only their own possession, they had also asserted the possession of Prahladji (husband of Appellant 1 and father of the remaining appellants) prior to his death. In the case of Hanamgowda Shidgowda Patil v. Irgowda Shivgowda Patil [AIR 1925 Bom 9 :
26 Bom LR 829] it has been held that in cases of adverse possession, the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but it commences from the date when the defendants' possession became adverse. Therefore, in the present case, the starting point of limitation for adverse possession cannot be taken as 29-11-
1965 and one has to take the date when the respondents' possession became adverse. For all the above reasons, there is no merit in the above arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants.
12. Therefore, the aforesaid deletion of timeline has to be read with the amended provisions of Limitation Act 1963, as compared to the old Act of Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 22-12-2025 17:57:18 10 MP Nos. 3488 of 2023, 3485 of 2023 & 3490 of 2023 1908. In the present case, the petitioners neither set up their title, nor set up any plea of adverse possession. Therefore, in case of undisputed title, the proceedings were validly drawn by the Revenue Authority under Section 250.
13. The petitioners have not set up any title, nor set up any plea of adverse possession. They simply stated in their one page long reply, that they are in long possession. In absence of any plea of title or any license or any lease, or raising any other question that would have required evidence, the petitioners cannot draw benefit of some defect in proceedings.
14. The petitioners neither denied they being in possession, nor set up any plea of lawful possession. Therefore, this Court would not mechanically set aside the impugned order only for minor technical flaws.
15. The respondent had set up his case only on the basis of some demarcation report wherein the petitioner was found to be in possession of some land of the respondent and the said demarcation report admittedly has not been challenged by the petitioner.
16. The petitioners, if they still have any claim for title, may file a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction, for which, liberty is hereby granted to them.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 22-12-2025 17:57:18 11MP Nos. 3488 of 2023, 3485 of 2023 & 3490 of 2023
17. Consequently, by confirming the impugned orders passed by the Nayab Tehsildar, SDO and the Additional Commissioner, the present petitions are dismissed. The petitioners are set at liberty to institute a suit for title and permanent injunction, if so advised.
(VIVEK JAIN)
nks JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 22-12-2025
17:57:18