IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH WRIT PETITION No. 13577 of 2025 VEERSINGH GURJAR AND OTHERS Versus JITENDRA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri S.S.Rajput - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Priyanshu Yadav - Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri B.M.Patel - Govt. Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3/State.

Reserved on : 09/02/2026 Delivered on : 16/02/2026 ORDER Heard on the question of admission and final disposal with the consent of parties.

The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the objections raised by the petitioners against the demarcation proceedings dated 06.01.2025 have been rejected and the said demarcation proceedings have been affirmed.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under:

2.1The respondent No.1 moved an application in terms of Section

129 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Naib Tehsildar, Circle Udaipur, Tehsil Basoda, District Vidisha seeking demarcation of land bearing Survey Nos.140/2/1/3 and 143 situated at Village Imaliya. The said application was considered and based upon the demarcation report so received, an order dated 07.10.2024 was passed affirming the demarcation report.

2.2The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order dated

07.10.2024 before the Sub Divisional Officer and the Sub Divisional Officer, vide order dated 11.12.2024, while allowing the application filed by the petitioners and in exercise of powers under Section 129(5) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, constituted a demarcation team comprising of four revenue officers for holding a demarcation afresh.

2.3The team so constituted by the Sub Divisional Officer conducted the demarcation proceedings on 06.01.2025 and submitted its report, wherein the petitioners were found to have encroached the land of respondent No.1.

2.4The petitioners herein submitted objections to the demarcation report dated 06.01.2025, which have been rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 18.02.2025 impugned in the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the earlier demarcation proceedings were conducted by the Tehsildar without adequate service of notice on the petitioners, and therefore, the order dated 07.10.2024 was rightly challenged by them before the Sub Divisional Officer. Although the Sub Divisional Officer directed fresh demarcation, even the newly constituted team conducted the demarcation proceedings without proper notice to the petitioners and behind their back. The demarcation was carried out using a rover machine, which, according to the petitioners, does not yield accurate results. Accordingly, the objections to the report were submitted which have been arbitrarily rejected.

4. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the map of the spot reveals that incorrect possession in the same is reflected and in the absence of proper notice to the petitioners, they were precluded from raising their objections during the demarcation proceedings conducted on 06.01.2025. Accordingly, he submits that the order impugned deserves to be quashed.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 opposes the writ petition and submits that even the second demarcation conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer on the appeal preferred by the petitioners revealed that the petitioners have encroached upon the land of the respondent No.1, and therefore, frivolous objection is being raised by the petitioners.

6. No other point has been pressed by learned counsels for the parties.

7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

8​ . It is an undisputed fact that in their representation filed by the petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Officer challenging the demarcation order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, the petitioners themselves requested fo