ORDER

Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

The present writ appeal has been preferred under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya(Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 13.12.2023, passed in W.P. No.30227/2023 whereby writ petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are that respondents no.6 filed an application for demarcation of land bearing Survey No. 253/2. The Tehsildar and Revenue Inspector were directed to conduct the demarcation and notices were issued to the adjacent land owners as well as the appellants. Appellants refused to accept the notice and demarcation was done and moka panchnama and spot inspection reports were prepared wherein appellants were found to be encroachers. Proceedings u/S 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code(referred to as "MPLRC" hereinafter) were initiated against the appellants by filing an application before the Tehsildar. Appellants objected the validity of the order passed u/S 129 of the MPLRC on the ground that Patwari is not the competent authority to pass such order and before carrying out demarcation, notices were not served to the appellants. The Tehsildar passed an order under Section 250 of the MPLRC directing the Revenue Inspector and Patwari to take steps for handing over possession to the respondents. Appellants challenged the order passed by the Tehsildar before the Sub Divisional Officer as well as the Additional Commissioner. However, on dismissal of both the appeal, appellants have filed petition before the writ Court. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants. Hence, appellants are before this Court in writ appeal.

3 . Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned Single Judge failed to consider the settled principle that when the statute provide that an act has to be done in a particular manner, then that has to be done in that manner only. Similarly in appellants' case, the demarcation has to be done by the Revenue Officers only which has not been done. It has been erroneously observed that in demarcation proceedings notices were served upon the appellants which is contrary to the record. The application u/S 25 of the MPLRC was submitted on the basis of demarcation of boundaries u/S 129 of the MPLRC carried out by the Patwari who has no jurisdiction to do so.

Learned Single Judge has further failed to consider that respondent no. 5 has played fraud as one of the neightbour was shown to be served in the year 2018.

However, she had expired in the year 2014 i.e. four years back. Under such circumstances, the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be allowed setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 5. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has rightly held that revenue authorities while conducting proceedings u/S 250 of the MPLRC have examined the fact of service of notice upon the appellants and it was found that appellants have denied to accept the notice and, therefore, the proceedings u/S 129 and 250 of the MPLRC cannot be assailed.

6. This Court finds that learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the material available on record and came to the conclusion and has rightly dismissed the writ petition. No apparent error is found on the face of record so as to interfere in the order so passed.

7. Accordingly, this writ appeal being bereft of merits and substance is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA) JUDGE JUDGE sh