IMPORTANT POINT
Finality of demarcation proceedings under section 129 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code cannot be contested in subsequent applications under section 250.

ORDER :

(Pranay Verma, J.) :

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain reversing the order dated 31-12-2020 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sub Division Javad, District - Neemuch who in turn had set aside the order dated 17-12-2019 passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Javad, whereby the application under section 250 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code’) preferred by respondent No. 1 had been allowed.

2. The facts in brief are that respondent No. 1 made an application before the Tehsildar for demarcation of his land bearing survey No. 853 area 0.470 hectare and survey No. 854 area 0.200 hectare total area 0.670 hectare, Gram Babaljuni, Tehsil Javad, District – Neemuch. On the application demarcation was carried out on 25-6-2018. There was some error in demarcation which was corrected by order dated 16-7-2018. In the demarcation illegal possession of the petitioner over the disputed land was found. Respondent No. 1 then requested the petitioner to deliver possession of the said land to him but he refused to do so.

3. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed an application under section 250 of the Code on 30-7-2018 before the Tehsildar which was allowed by him by order dated 17-12-2019 on the basis of the demarcation having been carried out earlier. The said order was set aside in appeal preferred by petitioner by the Sub Division Officer on the ground that the demarcation proceedings as carried out earlier are erroneous and contrary to the provisions of section 129 of the Code hence on the basis of such demarcation report the prayer of respondent No. 1 under section 250 of the Code cannot be allowed. The said order has been set aside in appeal having been preferred by respondent No. 1 under section 4(2) of the Code by the Additional Commissioner by the impugned order holding that the legality of proceedings under section 129 of the Code cannot be examined in proceedings under section 250.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the demarcation proceedings which had been carried out by the Tehsildar earlier were wholly illegal and erroneous. The demarcation had been carried out in contravention to the provisions under section 129 of the Code and the rules made in that regards. On the basis of the said demarcation the application preferred by respondent No. 1 could not be allowed. The possession of the petitioner over the disputed land is not illegal and he is in its possession rightfully of which a partition has been effected in the family. It is hence submitted that the impugned order be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Smt. Anubai vs. State of M. P. and others, 2023(2) RN 194.

5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.

6. In Murlidhar and another vs. Board of Revenue M. P. and others, 2013(3) M.P.L.J. 184, it has been categorically held by this Court that in case the order under section 129 of the Code is not challenged by preferring appeal or revision under section 44 or section 50 of the Code, the same becomes final and if on the basis of the same any action is taken that cannot be interfered with. It has been held as under :

“15. 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