IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

nd

ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 2644 of 2026 UDIT NARAYAN PYASI AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Awdhesh Kumar Mishra - Advocate for petitioners.

Shri Suyash Thakur - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.

ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order dated 23.10.2024 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No.3-Tahsildar whereby the objections filed by the petitioner with respect to demarcation proceedings have been rejected. The petitioner is further aggrieved by order dated 27.06.2025 passed by respondent No.2-Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Tahsil Amarpatan District Maihar (M.P.) whereby his application filed under Section 129(5) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 has been dismissed.

2. It is a case of the petitioners that they are joint owners of land bearing Khasra Nos.11/1/1 area 0.3130, 11/1/2 area 0.2010, 11/2 area 0.2990 and 12/1 area 1.620 whereas the respondent No.5 is the owner of land bearing Khasra No.12/2 area 0.948 hectare. The petitioners claim to be in possession of the property since from the time of their forefathers i.e. for approximately 70-80 years. The respondent No.5 moved an application under Section 129 of MPLRC for demarcation on the part of Arazi No. 11/2 area 0.2990 hectare and 12/2 area 0.948 hectare situated at Village Nimha Tahsil Amarpatan and on the basis whereof, the concerned Patwari had demarcated the land and prepared documents such as spot panchanama, field book and nazri naksha etc. and submitted report before Tahsildar. The same was confirmed by the Tahsildar vide order dated 22.06.2024 against which objections filed by petitioner were rejected vide impugned order dated 23.10.2024. The petitioner No.1 preferred application under Section 129(5) of MPLRC before Sub-Divisional Officer against the order dated 23.10.2024 which came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.06.2025.

3. It is submitted that on the basis of demarcation proceedings, the respondent No.5 moved an application under Section 250 of the MPLRC before the Tahsildar for dispossession of petitioners from the property in question. The Tahsildar passed an order of dispossession on 24.07.2025 on the basis of Patwari report; however, the same is passed without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is argued that in the revenue records, name of grandfather of petitioners namely Laxminarayan was recorded till 2009 but due to some wrong entry, name of one Somnath Dubey was entered in 2015-16. The petitioner preferred an application for correction of the records which was rejected on 19.12.2024. They also filed a civil suit before the competent civil court which has been registered as RCS- A No.0089 of 2025 for declaration of title and permanent injunction which is still pending adjudication. The Tahsildar has issued notices for dispossession to the petitioners on 10.11.2025 in compliance of the order dated 24.07.2025.

Therefore, this petition is filed.

4. The fact remains that the order for dispossession has been issued in pursuance to the demarcation orders passed by the authorities on earlier occasion. The petitioners have challenged the order on demarcation application as well as the order for dispossession passed in pursuance to the application filed under Section 250 of the MPLRC. The petitioners have pointed out that a civil suit has been preferred before the competent civil court which is registered as RCS-A No. 0089 of 2025 seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction which is pending adjudication. The petitioners can press their application for grant of injunction in the pending civil suit by pointing out the order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the revenue authorities regarding dispossession from the property in question.

5. Considering the fact that dispossession notice is issued in pursuance to earlier proceedings of demarcation coupled with the