IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA th ON THE 16 OF JULY, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 1905 of 2020 SMT. NAGINA Versus MADHUSUDAN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri N.K. Gupta- Senior Advocate with Shri Santosh Agrawal and Shri Saket Sharma- Advocates for petitioner.

Shri R.D. Sharma and Shri Ajay Bhargava- Advocates for respondents.

ORDER

This Misc. Petition, under Article 227 of Constitution of India, has been filed against the order dated 20.09.2018 passed by Board of Revenue, M.P., Gwalior in Revision No.1-Revision/Shivpuri/L.R./2018/1203; order dated 06.03.2020 passed by Board of Revenue, M.P., Gwalior in Review No.6118/2018/Shivpuri/LR; and order dated 31.03.2016 passed by Naib Tahsildar, Circle-II, Dinara, Tahsil Karera, District Shivpuri (M.P.).

2. The facts, necessary for disposal of the present petition, in short, are that petitioner filed an application under Section 248 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for brevity “Code”) before Tahsildar, Karera, District Shivpuri (M.P.)

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN registered as Case No.3/2015-16/A-68 pleading inter alia that graveyard has been encroached upon by the respondents. It was pleaded that the land bearing Survey No.329 is the land of graveyard which is adjacent to the highway. The old survey number of graveyard was 203. In the same survey number, a well is situated which is a government land and after settlement the new survey number i.e. 334 was given to the well area. It was the case of petitioner that the area of graveyard i.e. Survey No.329 area 0.020 hectare has been wrongly encroached upon by the respondents and it was prayed that the respondents be dispossessed and the land of graveyard be made available for the community. Respondent No.2-Dinesh Kumar filed a reply pleading that respondent No.1-Madhusudan has sold the land to respondents No.2 and 3 which was the part of Survey No.333 and the construction is being made on Survey No.333. The Tahsildar directed the Patwari to conduct demarcation survey and submit his report. The Patwari without conducting demarcation merely submitted the inspection report mentioning that he has inspected the land bearing Survey No.329 which is not under encroachment by the respondents. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that report dated 28.12.2015 was not a demarcation report but it was an inspection report.

3. Petitioner submitted her objection to the report. Accordingly, the Tahsildar directed Patwari to appear in the witness box for cross-examination. In the cross- examination he specifically admitted that he had not conducted any demarcation and just by looking at the area, he had submitted the report. It was further admitted by him that he has not prepared any field book because no demarcation was conducted by him. The Tahsildar without settling the boundary dispute and merely on the basis of so-called inspection report rejected the application filed by petitioner under Section 248 of Code.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN

4. Against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Karera, District Shivpuri (M.P.) which was registered as Appeal No.162/2015-16-A (Revenue). The Sub-Divisional Officer, after considering the cross-examination of Patwari, revenue record and Aks of the village, found that the land which was purchased by the respondents and where the construction is being made is different as the boundaries of the land purchased by them are not tallying with the construction which is being raised by them and further directed the revenue authorities to conduct the demarcation and thereafter to proceed to demolish the illegal construction and remove the encroachment made by respondents. Against the order dated 31.01.2017, the respondents preferred an appeal which was registered as Appeal No.201/2016- 17. The Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, after considering the arguments raised by the parties passed