The failure to provide proper notice and opportunity for hearing in land demarcation proceedings violates principles of natural justice, rendering such proceedings invalid.

This miscellaneous petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 02.06.2022 passed by respondent no.3 - Sub-Divisional Officer, Badamalahara, District- Chhatarpur in revenue case no.0482/B-121/2021-22 (Mukundilal Pathak Vs. Bharat Lal Tiwari and Others), whereby the SDO upheld the order dated 07.07.2021 passed by respondent no.4-Tehsildar, Ghuvara, District- Chhatarpur in Revenue Case No.0026/A-12/2021-22, whereby the Tehsildar confirmed the demarcation proceedings carried out by the Revenue Inspector vide final report dated 05.07.2021.

2. The facts giving rise to filing this petition is that the initially the respondent no.1 filed an application under Section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short “the MPLRC ”) before the Tehsildar for demarcation of land bearing Khasara no.4010 area 0.785 hectares, 4011 area 0.61 hectares and Khasra No.4012 area 0.198 hectares situated at village, Tehsil- Ghuvara, District- Chhatapur which was registered in revenue case no.26/A-12/2021-22 and the respondent no.4 constituted a four member committee for demarcation of the land vide order dated 29.06.2021. After completion of proceedings, the demarcation order was passed on 07.07.2021.

3. The petitioner- Mukundilal Pathak herein has preferred an appeal filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer under section 129(5) of the MPLRC and the SDO has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner rejected as being baseless and the order dated 07.07.2021 passed by the Tehsildar is kept intact as being legal.

4. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by learned Courts below (the respondent no.3 and 4), preferred the present appeal seeking to set aside the order dated 02.06.2022 and 07.07.2021 stated (surpa).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the orders passed by the third and fourth respondents are highly erroneous and contrary to the law and in elaboration it is contended by the learned counsel that the findings of the Tehsildar are upheld by the SDO that the impugned action in the original application without following due process of law suffers from lack of jurisdiction is neither sustainable nor tenable in the eyes of law. It is further argued that without serving proper notice to the petitioner, the Revenue Inspector (Patwari) demarcated the land and submitted the report to the Tehsildar, and further contended that the alleged notice said to have been issued by the Revenue Inspector showing the date of demarcation 02.07.2021 but that was not done and demarcated the land on the very next day i.e. 03.07.2021 without giving any further notice of change of date for demarcation, therefore, the demarcation report submitted by Revenue Inspector is neither sustainable nor tenable. Further would submit that the notice is said to have been issued by the Revenue Inspector has not been served on the petitioner and affixed on the wall of the petitioner’s house, in contrary to provisions of Order 5 Rule 17 CPC, and he further submits that the demarcation proceedings have been conducted and finalized behind the back the petitioner. Therefore, he prays to allow the petition and the orders passed by the Tehsildar which was affirmed by SDO are liable to be set-aside and the matter may be remanded back to the fourth respondent-Tehsildar for fresh consideration in terms of Section 129(5) of the MPLRC .

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is absolutely no error nor there exists any infirmity in the order passed by the fourth respondent upheld by third respondent, in the absence of the same, the orders passed by the third and fourth respondents, which are impugned in the present miscellaneous petition, is not amenable for any judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the findings of third and fourth respondents with regard to demarcation of the subject land to initiate impugned action cannot be fau