Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
AMIT SETH, J.
Amit Pratap Singh Kushwah – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 34056 of 2025
Decided On : 13-10-2025
¼1½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 129 & vis{kk,¡ & tc jkT; ljdkj ljdkjh Òwfe dk lhekadu djuk pkgrh gS rc Qhl dk lank; djus ;k dksbZ v©ipkfjd vkosnu djus dh vis{kk ugÈ g¨xhA ¼iSjk 23½
¼2½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 129 rFkk 131 & ykxw g¨uk & ljdkjh Òwfe d¢ lkFk&lkFk vke jkLrs ls vfèkØe.k gVkus dk ç'u & vfèkØe.k dk rF; vfÒfuf'pr djus d¢ fy, lhekadu vfuok;Z gS & èkkjk 131 vius [ksr ij igq¡pus ds :fढ+xr jkLrs ds Ñ"kd d¢ vfèkdkj ls lacafèkr gS & ;gk¡ ;g ekeyk ugÈA ¼iSjk 25½
¼3½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 129 & e/; çns'k lhekadu fu;e] 2018 & fuŒ 7¼,d½ & lhekadu d¢ fy, ny xfBr djus dh 'kfä & dysDVj }kjk tkjh fd, x, funs'k d¢ vuqlkj dysDVj] mi[kaM vfèkdkjh rFkk rglhynkj esa fufgr gS & lhekadu dk;Zokgh djus d¢ fy, ljdkj d¢ in/kkjh d¨ lekfo"V dj lhekadu ny xfBr & blls gLr{ksi dk d¨Ã vkèkkj xfBr ugÈ gksrkA ¼iSjk 26 ,oa 27½
¼4½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 129 & lwpuk tkjh djus dk mn~ns'; & lhekadu d¢ fy, lwpuki= tkjh fd;k x;k & og mPp U;k;ky; rFkk mPpre U;k;ky; d¢ le{k vk{ksfir fd;k x;k & vr% ;kph d¨ çLrkfor lhekadu dh iw.kZ tkudkjh Fkh & lhekadu dk;Zokgh vke turk] iqfyl inèkkjhx.k] ;kph ,oa mld¢ dqVqac d¢ lnL;¨a dh mifLFkfr esa dh xà & dk;Zokgh dh ohfM;¨xzkQh Òh dh xbZ & ;g vFkZ ugÈ yxk;k tk ldrk fd ;kph dks lhekadu dh lwpuk ugÈ Fkh & lwpuk tkjh djus dk mn~ns'; lacafèkr O;fä d¨ çLrkfor dk;Zokgh ls voxr djkuk gSA ¼iSjk 29 ,oa 33½
¼5½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 124 rFkk 129 & lhekadu dk;Zokgh ftyk ç'kklu d¢ mPp∈èkkjhx.k dh mifLFkfr esa gh ugÈ] vfirq fo'ks"kK jktLo vfèkdkjh ny dh mifLFkfr esa dh xà & lhekadu djus d¢ fy, èkkjk 124 d¢ fucaèku d¢ vuqlkj LFkk;h fpou vFkkZr~ iqjkuk dqvk¡ fopkj esa fy;k x;k & gLr{ksi visf{kr ugÈA 2009 jkfu 161 % 2009 ¼2½ ,eih,yts 429] 2019 ¼1½ jkfu 246 ¼mPp U;k;ky;½ rFkk 2025 ¼1½ jkfu 185 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 32 ,oa 38½
¼6½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 115 rFkk 129 & vkifÙk;¨a ij fopkj dj rFkk ;kph ds rdZ Jo.k djus d¢ i'pkr~ lhekadu vkns'k ikfjr & ;kph dk ladFku fd mlds }kjk uD'kk 'kq) djus d¢ fy, vkosnu çLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk blfy, mDr vkosnu dk fofu'p;u fd, fcuk lhekadu dk;Zokgh ugÈ dh tk ldrh Fkh & ;g lhekadu dk;Zokgh d¨ foyafcr djus dk ç;kl gSA ¼iSjk 33½
¼7½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuqPNsn 226 & 'kfä dh O;kfIr & U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu esa fjV U;k;ky; ls visf{kr gS fd fofu'p;u çfØ;k dk ijh{k.k djs] Lo;a fofu'p; dk ugÈ & lhekadu d¢ fy, jktLo çkfèkdkfj;¨a }kjk viukà xà çfØ;k fdlh Li"Vxkspj voSèkrk ls xzLr ugÈ & gLr{ksi ugÈ fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 37½
(1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 129 -- requirements -- when State Government intends to do demarcation of Government land then there may not be any requirement of payment of fees or submission of any formal application. [Para 23]
(2) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 129 and 131 -- applicability -- issue of removal of encroachment on Government land as well as public way -- demarcation is essential to ascertain factum of encroachment -- section 131 deals with right of customary way of agriculturist to approach his field -- which is not the case here. [Para 25]
(3) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 129 -- M. P. Demarcation Rules, 2018 -- R. 7(1) -- power to constitute team for demarcation -- vested with Collector, SDO and Tahsildar in accordance with direction issued by Collector -- demarcation team comprising of Government official has been constituted for holding demarcation proceedings -- same does not constitute any ground for interference. [Paras 26 & 27]
(4) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 129 -- object of issuance of notice -- notice for demarcation issued -- same challenged before High Court and Supreme Court -- thus, petitioner had full knowledge of demarcation which was proposed to be conducted -- demarcation proceedings were conducted in presence of public at large, police officials, petitioner and his family members -- videography of proceedings also done -- it cannot be construed that petitioner had no notice of demarcation -- object of issuance of notice is to make person concerned aware of action proposed to be taken. [Paras 29 & 33]
(5) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 124 and 129 -- demarcation proceedings were drawn not only in presence of high officials of district administration, but was done in presence of expert revenue officer team -- in terms of section 124, permanent mark, i.e., old well was taken into consideration for demarcation -- no interference called for. 2009 RN 161 = 2009 (2) MPLJ 429, 2019 (1) RN 246 (HC) and 2025 (1) RN 185 (HC) referred to. [Paras 32 & 38]
(6) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 115 and 129 -- demarcation order passed after considering objections and hearing arguments of petitioner -- contention of petitioner that since application was filed by him for correction of map, demarcation proceedings could not be done without deciding said application -- it is an attempt to delay the proceedings of demarcation. [Para 33]
(7) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- scope of powers -- in judicial review, writ Court is required to examine decision-making process and not decision itself -- procedure for demarcation adopted by revenue authorities does not suffer from any palpable illegality -- no interference. [Para 37]
Key Points: - The court held that judicial review is limited to examining the decision-making process, not the merits of the demarcation decision (!) (!) . - The petitioner’s challenge to initiation without a formal application or fee was rejected; the court affirmed that demarcation of government land may proceed without a formal application or fee in certain executive contexts (!) (!) . - The demarcation proceedings were conducted with a team constituted by the Collector and included TEHSILDAR and other officials, in accordance with Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Bhu-Rajaswa Sanhita Simankan Niyam, 2018; notices and presence of officials were found to satisfy due process (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The demarcation report identified encroachment and used an old well as the permanent mark for boundary; objections were considered and decided by the Tehsildar, with further review orders up to the Collector (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Courts cited precedents limiting interference in demarcation matters where procedures were followed and objections adequately addressed (!) (!) . - The petition was dismissed; the petitioner may pursue civil proceedings separately if desired (!) (!) .
ORDER :
AMIT SETH, J.
1. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 12.09.2024 (Annexure-P/2) passed by respondent No.4, whereby the demarcation in respect of the government land bearing Khasra Nos.2711, 2715 situated at Tehsil Lahar, District Bhind, has been allowed and the demarcation report submitted has been accepted.
3. Petition also challenges the order dated 18.08.2025 (Annexure- P/1) passed by respondent No.3, whereby the application submitted by the petitioner against the order dated 12.09.2024 in terms of provisions contained under Section 129(5) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, has been rejected.
4. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under:
4.1Petitioner herein claims himself to be the owner of the property situated on the land bearing Survey No.2729, Lahar, District Bhind, which is stated to have been purchased by him vide sale deed dated 23.03.1993. It is the case of the petitioner that under the political influence, a complaint came to be filed by one Ex-Councillor of Ward No.12 before the Collector, Bhind that the father of the petitioner had encroached upon the government land by raising permanent construction and installing an iron gate, on the public way, which was being used by the residents for their movement which deserves to be removed, in the public interest. The said complaint made by the Ex-Councillor was referred to respondent No.5, who in turn vide communication dated 04.07.2024 requested the Tehsildar, Lahar to hold the demarcation of the government land bearing Survey Nos.2711 and 2715, so that the complaint pertaining to encroachment on government land could be disposed.
4.2 On the said communication, the Tehsildar constituted a team of the Revenue Officers for holding the process of demarcation and the demarcation of the land in question commenced on 18.07.2024 and concluded on 20.07.2024. A report of demarcation was submitted. The objections to the said report were considered and rejected and thereafter, the impugned order dated 12.09.2024 was passed by the Tehsildar which came to be affirmed vide order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the respondent No.3.
5. Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the entire proceedings of holding of demarcation of the lands in question stands vitiated, as the same was conducted under the political influence. Just because, the father of the petitioner happens to be the Ex-MLA of State of M.P. and belongs to the opposition party, he has been targeted in the matter under the garb of compliant made for encroachment on the government land. It is further submitted that the procedure has been prescribed for holding of demarcation under Section 129 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, which inter alia commences from the filing of a formal application, deposit of requisite fee through treasury challan, the constitution of the team and issuance of notices to the persons likely to be affected by the demarcation proceedings, preparation of spot panchnama and holding of demarcation proceedings by identifying the boundary marks. Deciding of the objections against the demarcation report and thereafter, passing of the final order. However, according to the petitioner, the said exercise has not been done in the matter.
6. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that on the communication made by the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Lahar, the demarcation case was registered by the Tehsildar, without there being any formal application or payment of any requisite fee. In the instant case, in terms of the Madhya Pradesh Bhu-Rajaswa Sanhita Simankan Niyam, 2018, the team is required to be constituted for the purposes of holding of demarcation proceedings by the Tehsildar but in the instant case, a team was constituted by the Collector. No proper notice of holding of demarcation proceedings was served
The principles of natural justice require proper notice and opportunity to be heard before decisions affecting rights are made; failure to comply invalidates proceedings.
Non-compliance with certain instructions regarding demarcation of boundaries, such as recording statements of parties or fixing three Pucca points, will not vitiate the demarcation as a whole.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
