Mahendra vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Headnote:(A) Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Section 129 - Demarcation of boundaries - Bar on appeal or revision - Section 129(8) provides that no appeal or application for revision shall lie against any order passed or proceedings taken under this section - Consequently, no second appeal is tenable against an order passed by a Sub-Divisional Officer in demarcation proceedings. (Paras 9, 10, 11)

(B) Principles of Administrative Law - Appellate Authority - Duty to consider relevant material - An order passed by an appellate authority that fails to consider detailed objections and a prior order which has attained finality is unsustainable - Where the appellate authority is unsatisfied with the lower authority's order, the proper course is to remand the matter for fresh proceedings or direct a fresh report. (Paras 7, 8, 12)

Facts of the case:
An application for land demarcation was filed before the Tehsildar, which was subsequently rejected after the petitioner raised objections concerning the inclusion of government land and cited a previous order from 1988. The respondent challenged this rejection before the Sub-Divisional Officer, who set aside the Tehsildar's order. The petitioner then assailed this order before the High Court on the grounds that the appellate authority ignored material objections and the prior final order.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the impugned order did not reflect any consideration of the petitioner's objections or the previous order. It further held that the objection regarding an alternative remedy was untenable as the statute specifically bars appeals and revisions under the demarcation section.

Issues: Whether the appellate authority's order was sustainable despite the failure to consider material objections and a final prior order, and whether a statutory alternative remedy exists against such orders.

Ratio Decidendi: An order is unsustainable if the appellate authority fails to consider the replies and objections of the parties and ignores orders that have attained finality. Moreover, pursuant to Section 129(8) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, no appeal or revision is maintainable against orders passed in demarcation proceedings.

Result: Petition allowed. Impugned order set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration within 90 days.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Petition challenging order setting aside Tehsildar's reijection of demarcation application under Section 129 MPLRC. (Para 2 )

2. Petitioner argued finality of prior order and lack of consideration; respondent raised alternative remedy and validty of impugned order. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )

3. Impugned order set aside; matter remanded for fresh consideration within 90 days. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )

4. Is an alternative remedy available against an order of the Sub Divisional Officer in demarcation proceedings under Section 129 MPLRC?

No. Section 129(8) bars any appeal or revision against orders under this section, so a second appeal is not tenable. (Para 10 , 11 )

5. Must the appellate authority consider all objections and prior orders when deciding an appeal under Section 129 MPLRC?

Yes, failure to consider objections and prior orders renders the order unsustainable and calls for remand. (Para 7 , 8 , 12 )

6. What is the proper procedure when the Sub Divisional Officer disagrees with the Tehsildar's order in demarcation proceedings?

The officer should either remand the matter for fresh demarcation or direct a fresh report; setting aside without such steps is improper. (Para 8 )

ORDER :

VISHAL MISHRA, J.

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed assailing the order dated 17/01/2025 passed by respondent No.2, whereby the Appeal filed by respondent No.3 has been allowed and the order dated 13/06/2024 has been set aside.

2 . It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 filed an application before Tehsildar, Mohangarh under Section 129 of MPLRC 1959, seeking demarcation of land bearing Khasra No.373/1 and 373/2 admeasuring 0.526 and 0.304 respectively, to which petitioner has submitted his objection pointing out the fact that along with private land, the concerned Halka Patwari has also demarcated the Government land. The said matter was already contested before the competent Authority and order dated 06/06/1988 has been passed in favour of the petitioner. Tehsildar, Mohangarh considering the objections raised by the petitioner has rejected the application filed by respondent No.3 vide order dated 13/06/2024. The said order was assailed by respondent No.3 by filing an Appeal under Section 44 of MPLRC before respondent No.2, wherein a detailed reply has been filed by the petitioner denying all the contentions.

3. It is pointed out that respondent No.3 is in illegal possession of about 10 acres of land of Khasra No.373. Respondent No.2 in an arbitrary manner without appreciating the contentions and the replies submitted by the petitioner has allowed the Appeal and satisfied the well-reasoned order dated 13/06/2024 vide impugned order dated 17/01/2025. Therefore, this petition is filed.

4. It is argued that once the order dated 06/06/1988 has already been passed by the Authorities which has attained finality, there was no occasion for the respondents to pass a fresh order for demarcation of the property in question. The objection raised by the petitioner has never been considered by the Authorities nor the order dated 06/06/1988 and out-rightly the impugned order has been passed which is per se illegal. It is further argued that if the Sub Divisional Officer was not satisfied with the order passed by the Tehsildar, he should have remanded the matter for fresh demarcation proceedings, but Sub Divisional Officer has not done the same. He has directed for compliance of the order passed by the Tehsildar/ Halka Patwari. Therefore, this petition has been filed.

5. On notice being issued, a reply has been filed by respondent No.3. He has raised a preliminary objection with respect to alternative and efficacious remedy of raising a dispute before the Commissioner under Section 44(2) of MPLRC. He has further supported the order impugned. It is argued that all the points raised by the petitioner were duly considered by the Authorities and thereafter the impugned order has been passed. It is contended that the objection raised by the petitioner with respect to order dated 06/06/1988 was duly considered by the Authorities and the order pertains to different parcel of the land and was not a subject matter of proceedings under Section 129 of MPLRC with respect to the land in question. Therefore, the said objection is untenable. Tehsildar has failed to consider the key documents including Patwari report, Revenue Inspector report, Panchanama, field book and the record of the case which were duly considered by Sub Divisional Officer. Therefore, the order impugned is just and proper and does not call for any interference in the petition. He has prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. From the perusal of record, it is seen that on an application filed by respondent No.3, detailed objections were raised by the petitioner, which were duly considered by Tehsildar and order dated 13/06/2024 has been passed, whereby, he has rejected the application for demarcation. The said order was assailed before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 without considering the order passed on 06/06/1988 as well as the objection filed by the petitioner h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 709

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VISHAL MISHRA, J.
Mahendra – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 10185 Of 2025
Decided On : 12-01-2026

Orders passed under Section 129 of the MPLRC are not subject to further appeal or revision per Section 129(8). Any appellate order setting aside a reasoned demarcation order without considering valid objections is unsustainable and warrants remand for fresh consideration.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Is an alternative remedy available against an order of the Sub Divisional Officer in demarcation proceedings under Section 129 MPLRC?

5. Must the appellate authority consider all objections and prior orders when deciding an appeal under Section 129 MPLRC?

6. What is the proper procedure when the Sub Divisional Officer disagrees with the Tehsildar's order in demarcation proceedings?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 709

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPURVISHAL MISHRA, J.Mahendra – Petitioner VersusThe State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents Writ Petition No. 10185 Of 2025Decided On : 12-01-2026

Orders passed under Section 129 of the MPLRC are not subject to further appeal or revision per Section 129(8). Any appellate order setting aside a reasoned demarcation order without considering valid objections is unsustainable and warrants remand for fresh consideration.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Is an alternative remedy available against an order of the Sub Divisional Officer in demarcation proceedings under Section 129 MPLRC?

5. Must the appellate authority consider all objections and prior orders when deciding an appeal under Section 129 MPLRC?

6. What is the proper procedure when the Sub Divisional Officer disagrees with the Tehsildar's order in demarcation proceedings?

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VISHAL MISHRA, J.
Mahendra – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 10185 Of 2025
Decided On : 12-01-2026