IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI rd ON THE 3 OF MAY, 2023 MISC. PETITION No. 2164 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

BIHARILAL S/O DHARAMDAS LODHI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O LADWARI TEHSIL BALDEVGARH DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SAKET AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE )

AND

1. PALLU S/O VRINDAVAN LODHI R/O VILLAGE LADWARI TEHSIL BALDEVGARH DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. RAJARAM S/O VRINDAVAN LODHI R/O VILLAGE LADWARI TEHSIL BALDEVGARH DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. BALKISHAN S/O VRINDAVAN LODHI R/O VILLAGE LADWARI TEHSIL BALDEVGARH DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. THAKUR DAS S/O JASHRATH LODHI R/O VILLAGE LADWARI TEHSIL BALDEVGARH DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE) DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. T E H S I L D A R B A L D E V G A R H DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

7. JAGDEESH S/O JASHRATH LODHI R/O LADWARI TEHSIL BALDEVGARH DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS Signature Not Verified (BY SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH - PANEL LAWYER )

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated

03.03.2023 (Annexure-P/1) in Case No.0164/Appeal/2022-23 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Baldeogarh District Teekamgarh by which, an appeal preferred in terms of Section 129(5) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (herein after referred as MPLRC) by the respondent has been entertained and while setting aside the order of the Tahsildar dated 30.08.2022 (Annexure-P/2), the matter has been remitted back to carry out the demarcation afresh.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner herein moved an application for demarcation before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar then initiated the procedure which is laid down in Section 129 of the MPLRC. The Tahsildar issued notices to all the parties including the respondent to remain present on the scheduled date of demarcation. Though the respondents were present on the scheduled date i.e. 08.05.2020 but refused to acknowledge the said notice and, therefore, an endorsement was made on the notice itself which has been brought on record at page no.24. Accordingly, the Tahsildar proceeded further and passed an order of demarcation dated 30.08.2022. The order passed by the Tahsildar was then challenged by the respondents by filing an appeal under Section 129(5) of the MPLRC. The same has been allowed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the matter has again been referred to Tahsildar to carry out demarcation afresh.

3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an appeal under Section 129(5) of the MPLRC is confined to the statutory grounds which are Signature Not Verified available under Section 129(5)(a)(b) of the MPLRC whereas, the Sub Divisional Officer apart from the aforesaid statutory ground and on other grounds also has entertained the appeal whereby the Sub Divisional Officer has ventured upon to examine the field map and also the non-availability of the Map Trace. Learned counsel contends that these are not the grounds which are available with the Sub Divisional Officer to entertain an appeal under Section 129(5) of the MPLRC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that when an appeal is moved before the Sub Divisional Officer under Section 129(5) of the MPLRC, in terms of Section 129(6) of the MPLRC, the Sub Divisional Officer, is empowered to conduct a demarcation himself and in the present case, self demarcation was conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer which is evident from the perusal of the Panchnama (Annexure-P/5). Therefore, even otherwise there could not have been any order of remand to the Tahsildar to conduct a demarcation afresh. It is also contended by the counsel that the respondents were very well present at the time of demarcation, therefore, this was a question which was required to be appreciated by the Su