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

th

ON THE 12 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 10185 of 2025 MAHENDRA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Pravesh Naveriya - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Vineet Singh - Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and

2/State.

Shri Navneet Shukla - Advocate for respondent No.3.

ORDER 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 responden