IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA th ON THE 26 OF JULY, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 1120 of 2024 SMT. JYOTI JAIN AND OTHERS Versus ANAND KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Dharmendra Soni - Advocate for petitioners.

Shri S.K. Vishwakarma And Shri Chandrahas Dubey - Advocates for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

ORDER The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated

05.02.2024 passed by the Additional Collector, Raisen whereby the appeal filed under Section 44(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code has been allowed.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that an application seeking demarcation of the land bearing Khasra Nos.365/3/1,365/3/2, 365/3/3, 365/3/4, 365/3/5, 365/3/6, 365/3/7 and 365/3/8 admeasuring 0.544 hectare situated in Tehsil Silwani, District Raisen on the ground of the ownership was filed. The said application was registered and demarcation proceedings were initiated. The same was conducted after following due process i.e. issuance of notices to surrounding agricultural land's owners on 12.05.2022 and the demarcation proceedings were done on 13.05.2022 with the help of ETS Machine. The notices issued on 12.05.2022 were served by the village chowkidar to Jyoti Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL Jain, Sourabh Jain and Siddharth Jain, who refused to take notices and refused to put their signatures on the documents. In presence of the owners of the surrounding agricultural lands/farmers, the Tehsildar, Silwani has conducted the demarcation proceedings and order was also passed. Thereafter, for a piece of land admeasuring 0.80 hectare which was found to be an illegal possession of the petitioners' neighbours, the proceedings under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code have been instituted by the respondents. Being aggrieved by the demarcation proceedings and the order of demarcation, the petitioners instituted an appeal under Section 129(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code before the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue. The appeal was registered and records pertaining to demarcation proceedings were summoned. Thereafter, an application was submitted before the Tehsildar Silwani by the respondents on the ground that the piece of land said to be illegally encroached by the petitioners. They have filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded one Ajeet Kumar Raghuvanshi as a party to the proceedings. The appeal under Section 129(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code was finally decided by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Silwani, District Raisen and passed a final order dated 24.04.2023 recording a categorical findings of the demarcation proceedings were ex-parte and no opportunity of hearing and notice was given to the petitioners. Thereafter, an appeal in terms of Section 44(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code was filed before the Additional Collector, Raisen along with an application for condonation of delay. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL Additional Collector without being condoning the delay, has passed an order on merits. The order-sheets of the proceedings of the Additional Collector have been placed on record to show that delay has never been condoned.

3. It is argued that in terms of Section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, no appeal lies against an order in demarcation proceedings. Only a representation is to be considered by the Sub Divisional Officer and thereafter, no appeal lies. He has drawn attention of this court to Section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. It is argued that second appeal before the Additional Collector under Section 44(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code itself was not maintainable. Learned Additional Collector has entertained the second appeal without having any jurisdiction to do so and has passed the impugned order. Placing reliance upon settled legal proposition of law in case the case of Hasham A