ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

i) Give direction to the respondents to produce the entire record pertinent to dispute which is raised and for which the petitioner has filed a petition before this court.

ii) Kindly set aside the order dated 18.4.2017 (Annexure P/3) and 11.4.2018 (Annexure P/4) and restore the order dated 12.9.2016 (Annexure P/2). iii) Direct the respondents to conduct fair demarcation in the presence of the parties after following the procedure and after affording proper opportunity of the parties.

iv) Any other relief which this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that respondents filed an application for demarcation of Khasra no.278, 279/1, 302, 304, 297, 296/2. The said demarcation proceedings have been conducted without any notice to the petitioners. However, the demarcation report was accepted by the Tahsildar without examining the Kotwar etc. The order of Tahsildar dated 25.1.2016 was challenged by the petitioners before the S.D.O., who by order dated 12.9.2016 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar to conduct a fair demarcation afresh. The order of S.D.O. dated 12.9.2016 was challenged by the respondents by filing an appeal before the Commissioner, who by order dated 18.4.2017 has allowed the appeal and the order of remand passed by the S.D.O. has been set aside. The order of the Commissioner was also challenged by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue, which too has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners by order dated 11.4.2018 in revision No.1483-PBR/17. It is submitted that on the basis of demarcation proceedings, the proceedings under section 250 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code have been initiated.

3. Challenging the demarcation proceedings, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not noticed and, therefore, the demarcation done by the Patwari was bad in law.

4. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for the respondents no.2 to 4 that demarcation was done after issuing notice to the petitioners and if the petitioners have decided to stay away from the demarcation proceedings then it cannot be said that the demarcation was incorrect.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The first and foremost question for consideration is as to whether the demarcation was done after giving due notice to the petitioners or not. The Additional Tahsildar, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad by order dated 25.1.2016 passed in Revenue Case No.6/A-70/2014-15 has considered the question as to whether the petitioners were noticed before carrying out demarcation or not. The Addl. Tahsildar has referred to the cross examination of the Patwari and observed as under :-

iVokjh }kjk crk;k fd vkns'k eq>s ugha feyk ysfdu ekSf[kd vkns'k }kjk lhekadu fd;k x;kA

lhekadu ds le; vukosnd mifLFkr ugha Fks] esjs }kjk iM+kSlh —"kdksa ,oa vukosndx.kksa dks lwpuk nh xbZ FkhA iapukek esjs }kjk fnukad 19-05-2014 dks rS;kj fd;k x;k] lhekadu ds le; dksVokj chekj gksus ls xkao dk ckyd clar ls lwpuk rkehy djokbZ Fkh rFkk vU;

ijh{k.k çdj.k esa layXu gSA

7. Thus, it is clear that Patwari had conducted the demarcation only on the oral instructions and he was not having any written order for the said purpose.

He has also admitted that the petitioners were not present at the time of demarcation. However, he claimed that he had sent a notice to the neighbouring farmers as well as to the petitioners, but thereafter he also clarified that at the time of demarcation since Kotwar was not well, therefore, the notice was got served through one child namely Basant.

8. How a person can take help of a child for effecting service of notice, has not been taken note of by any of the authority. Even the Addl. Tahsildar and any other authority did not conside