The main legal point established in the judgment is that demarcation under Section 129 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code can be interfered with in a proceeding under Section 250 if it suffers from gross irregularity and illegality.

JUDGMENT

Nandita Dubey, J. - Both the aforesaid writ petitions are heard and decided analogously by this common order.

2. The facts, in brief, taken from W.P. No.11490/2017 are that respondent has filed an application under Section 250 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") seeking possession of land ad-measuring 4 decimal and 0.58 acre that was found in illegal possession of present petitioners in the demarcation conducted on 06.06.1999 and 07.06.1999. The present petitioners in the reply to the said application contended that the alleged demarcation is irregular and illegal as no notice of demarcation was ever served on the petitioners. The Tahsildar, after considering the statements of witnesses, vide order dated 20.12.2005 rejected the application of the respondent.

3. Being aggrieved, the respondent challenged the aforesaid order before Sub-Divisional Officer. The appellate authority, consider that the record indicates that notices were served on the respondents allowed the appeal holding that in proceeding under Section 250 of the Code, demarcation under Section 129 of the Code cannot be questioned.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioners approached the second appellate authority. The Addl. Commissioner vide order dated 20.02.2009 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Sub-Divisional Officer. The respondent, thereafter preferred a revision challenging the order dated 20.02.2009 before the Board of Revenue. The question before the Board of Revenue was "whether in a proceeding under Section 250 of the Code, demarcation under Section 129 of the Code can be challenged ?." There being a divergent opinion in the matter, a reference was made to a Division Bench of the Board of Revenue. The reference was answered by order dated 18.03.2016 wherein it was held that ordinarily demarcation cannot be question in a proceeding under Section 250 of the Code. However, if prima facie demarcation suffers from gross irregularity and illegality, then the same can be interfered with in a proceeding under Section 250 of the Code. The single Member of the Board of Revenue thereafter allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 20.02.2009 of Addl. Commissioner directing possession to be restored to the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

5. Submission of Shri Aditya Khampariya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the Board of Revenue ought to have decided the matter in the light of answer given by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue, as the demarcation proceedings dated 06.06.1999 and 07.06.1999 were prima facie found to be illegal by the Tahsildar.

6. Per contra, Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the order of Board of Revenue. He has contended that the Board of Revenue, after considering the record, has found that demarcation was proper and the notice was served on the petitioners, hence, no interference is required, and prayed for dismissal of the petitions. It is further argued that any order passed under Section 129 of the Code cannot be challenged in proceeding under Section 250 of the Code. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in Murlidhar and another vs. Board of Revenue and others, (2013) 3 MPLJ 184 .

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. A perusal of order dated dated 20.12.2005 passed by Tahsildar reveals that the Tahsildar, on the basis of the statements of witnesses, has held that notice was not served on the petitioners nor they were present at the time of demarcation. The Sub-Divisional Officer, on the other hand, on the basis of Naksha Mauka has found that notice was properly served. In the impugned order, the Board of Revenue, after perusing the record, has mentioned that there is no illegality in the demarcation and the application under Section 250 of the Code has been found within the time limit. However, it has been observed that the d