Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Courts have also noted that improper demarcation or failure to update maps with Batankan results in illegal or incorrect land bifurcations, affecting land ownership and revenue records ["MANIKRAM (DIED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS vs RAMAN LAL (Died) - Chhattisgarh"] ["Diyanshu Gahriya vs Smt Sunita Bai - Madhya Pradesh"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Tariq Mohd. Khan VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Hemraj Tomar VS Rakesh Kumar - 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 420"]- ["MANIKRAM (DIED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS vs RAMAN LAL (Died) - Chhattisgarh"]- ["BABU vs LAXMAN - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Diyanshu Gahriya vs Smt Sunita Bai - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Padam Kumar Gargs vs Premnarayan Sharma - Madhya Pradesh"]
Land ownership disputes often hinge on precise boundary definitions. Imagine purchasing property only to face uncertainty over its exact limits due to improper demarcation. A frequent concern among landowners is demarcation without having batankan number—a process where land boundaries are marked without assigning khasra numbers or completing batankan (detailed measurement and mapping). This article delves into why such practices are typically problematic, drawing from judicial observations and revenue procedures.
In Indian revenue systems, particularly under codes like the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, demarcation establishes physical land boundaries. Khasra numbers are unique identifiers in revenue records linking plots to maps and ownership details. Batankan involves on-ground measurement, mapping in field books, and updating village maps.
Without these, boundaries remain ambiguous. As noted, demarcation without the demarcation of khasra numbers, especially when the khasra area is less than the prescribed minimum (less than 5 dismil), is legally problematic and may lack jurisdiction and validity Hemraj Tomar VS Rakesh Kumar - 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 420. Proper procedures ensure boundaries are fixed and recorded with khasra numbers Hemraj Tomar VS Rakesh Kumar - 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 420.
Generally, no. Demarcation lacking khasra number assignment and batankan is not legally valid or complete Hemraj Tomar VS Rakesh Kumar - 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 420. Courts have ruled it jurisdictionally defective, especially for khasra areas under 5 dismil, where batankan hasn't occurred and maps/field books are unprepared Hemraj Tomar VS Rakesh Kumar - 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 420.
Revenue inspectors or tahsildars typically lack authority for such actions. Demarcation based solely on sale deed boundaries, without khasra demarcation, exceeds legal powers and renders proceedings invalid Hemraj Tomar VS Rakesh Kumar - 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 420.
In one case, proceedings were quashed due to improper batankan: demarcation and Batankan was not properly done... the first appellate Court is justified in holding that the land demarcation and Batankan was not properly done though there is overwhelming evidence on record that the demarcation and Batankan was properly done TAHSILDAR SINGH VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - 2019 Supreme(Chh) 925. The court emphasized suspicious conduct by officials and absent boundary details, deeming demarcation improper TAHSILDAR SINGH VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - 2019 Supreme(Chh) 925.
Similarly, It is alleged that Survey No. 227/2 is a part of Survey No. 227, therefore, there is no requirement for fresh batankan... the application was allowed by the Tahsildar on the basis of the report given by R.I.—yet remanded for compliance with prior orders under Land Revenue Code Sections 70 and 250 Mamta sharma VS Ajay Shankar - 2019 Supreme(MP) 574.
Another instance involved re-batankan post-judgment: Respondent... preferred an application before Naib Tehsildar for doing re-batankan... Collector remanded the matter back to Tehsildar for re-demarcation and partition due to wrong demarcation Nandram Kushwah vs Omprakash Kushwah - 2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1765.
These rulings underscore that skipping khasra and batankan invites challenges.
Revenue rules mandate:- Field measurements with reference to khasra numbers.- Updates to revenue maps and field books.- No demarcation for sub-5 dismil khasra without batankan Hemraj Tomar VS Rakesh Kumar - 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 420.
Applications under sections like Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Section 24 require certified extracts from maps, khasras, and khatauni, plus fees (e.g., Rs. 1000 per survey number) Avadhesh Kumar VS District Magistrate, Lko. - 2022 Supreme(All) 936. Officials must verify compliance before proceeding Avadhesh Kumar VS District Magistrate, Lko. - 2022 Supreme(All) 936.
In a Chhattisgarh case, batankan in original khasra was noted but wrongly reported, leading to injunction disputes MUKUND DAMMANI vs SMT. MAMTA HINDUJA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 19536. Courts stress notice and impleading parties Mamta sharma VS Ajay Shankar - 2019 Supreme(MP) 574.
For instance, a suit for permanent injunction failed due to unproven adverse possession and cancelled batankan Prahilad Kaushwaha VS Pushpa Devi - 2016 Supreme(MP) 785. Landowners risk litigation, as seen in exchanges halted by improper demarcation TAHSILDAR SINGH VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - 2019 Supreme(Chh) 925.
Rarely permissible. Even if batankan exists for parent survey numbers, sub-divisions demand fresh processes unless court-ordered Mamta sharma VS Ajay Shankar - 2019 Supreme(MP) 574. Proposals with farmer consent may proceed, but objections trigger scrutiny Sewaram vs Board Of Revenue - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Mp) 35182. Sale deeds alone don't suffice without official khasra fixation Hemraj Tomar VS Rakesh Kumar - 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 420.
To safeguard rights:- Verify khasra demarcation and batankan before purchase.- Ensure applications include required documents and notices Avadhesh Kumar VS District Magistrate, Lko. - 2022 Supreme(All) 936.- Challenge invalid reports via revisions or courts Mamta sharma VS Ajay Shankar - 2019 Supreme(MP) 574.- Authorities should adhere to thresholds and prepare maps Hemraj Tomar VS Rakesh Kumar - 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 420.
Stakeholders: Land authorities must ensure that khasra numbers are properly demarcated and recorded before proceeding with boundary demarcation Hemraj Tomar VS Rakesh Kumar - 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 420. Courts may scrutinize and set aside non-compliant reports Hemraj Tomar VS Rakesh Kumar - 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 420.
Demarcation without proper khasra numbers and batankan typically lacks legal validity, exposing landowners to disputes and invalid titles. Always prioritize revenue-compliant procedures for certainty.
Key Takeaways:- Invalid without khasra/batankan, especially <5 dismil Hemraj Tomar VS Rakesh Kumar - 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 420.- Courts quash defective processes TAHSILDAR SINGH VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - 2019 Supreme(Chh) 925Prahilad Kaushwaha VS Pushpa Devi - 2016 Supreme(MP) 785.- Follow rules for applications and notices Avadhesh Kumar VS District Magistrate, Lko. - 2022 Supreme(All) 936.
This article provides general insights based on cited cases and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
References:1. Hemraj Tomar VS Rakesh Kumar - 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 420: Core on invalidity without khasra/batankan.2. Gunwant Kaur VS Municipal Committee, Bhatinda - 1969 0 Supreme(SC) 521: Demarcation prerequisite for rights.3. TAHSILDAR SINGH VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - 2019 Supreme(Chh) 925, Mamta sharma VS Ajay Shankar - 2019 Supreme(MP) 574, others as noted.
#LandDemarcation #KhasraBatankan #LandLawIndia
Suppose those documents were not produced and under the directions of this Court if any Simankan is done then the revenue officers cannot demarcate the land without having Batankan number on the specified land i.e. 4150 sq. yard. ... the land of petitioners prior to demarcation. ... The report indicates that no documents have been produced by the petitioners regarding Batankan. ... The claim of the petitioner in the said petition was that for a part of Khasra No. 1413 the civil Court granted a decree to....
He also submits that unless batankan is done in the field map/village map, there is no question of demarcation of boundaries of survey number or sub-division of survey number. 18. ... Now question arises as to whether any Revenue Inspector or Tahsildar can entertain an application under section 129 of the MPLRC for demarcation of a khasra number which is having area less than 5 dismil and where no batankan has been done in the map and can demarcate such khasra #HL_STA....
It is alleged that Survey No. 227/2 is a part of Survey No. 227, therefore, there is no requirement for fresh batankan of this Survey number. ... It is further alleged that respondent without impleading the petitioner and without informing or issuing notice filed an application for batankan/partition before the Tahsildar, Gwalior and the application was allowed by the Tahsildar on the basis of the report given by R.I. vide order dated 28.2.2011 ... Land Revenue Code were initiated by respondent alleging....
The trial Court assigned various reasons for not accepting the Demarcation Report. However, the Appellate Court, without adverting to the same, relied on such Demarcation Report. ... In view of the above, in my opinion, after proper Batankan of the map, a fresh demarcation is necessary for proper identitification of the land. 9. In the matter of Shreepat v. ... Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the trial Court with a direction to hear the same afresh on receipt of a fresh Demarcation#HL_E....
demarcation and Batankan was not properly done. ... In these circumstances learned First Appellate Court arrived at a finding that demarcation and Batankan were not properly done. ... (ii) Whether the first appellate Court is justified in holding that the land demarcation and Batankan was not properly done though there is overwhelming evidence on record that the demarcation and Batankan was properly done ... Proper demarcation o....
that demarcation and Batankan was not properly done. ... (ii) Whether the first appellate Court is justified in holding that the land demarcation and Batankan was not properly done though there is overwhelming evidence on record that the demarcation and Batankan was properly done ?” 13. ... In these circumstances learned First Appellate Court arrived at a finding that demarcation and Batankan were not properly done. ... Proper demarcation#....
He propounds that in case no adjoining land owner moves application for batankan then the application of the petitioners will be kept pending and it is every likelihood that the adjoining land owners will wittingly not move the application for batankan. ... ORDER By the instant petition, the petitioners are raising grievance in respect of an order dated 18.12.2022 passed by the SDO on an objection raised by the respondent whereby after getting demarcation done and application submitted by the petitioner, the order had been passed by the ....
Respondent Omprakash Kushwah preferred an application before Naib Tehsildar for doing re-batankan on the basis of judgment passed by the executing court on 30.07.2012. ... Thereafter, Tehsildar referred the matter to Collector and the Collector remanded the matter back to Tehsildar for re-demarcation and partition of the land between the parties. ... At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per original judgment and decree, partition could not be took place due to wrong demarcation done by revenue authoritie....
Main submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that plot No.1345 is a big number, in which there are many persons including the petitioners recorded. Applicant/respondent No.6 Hukum Singh filed an application before the Tahsildar for its batankan as per its own number. ... Patwari submitted the proposal of batankan/partition along with the consent of concerned farmers. Notice was issued to other co-farmers, but none has come forward to file the objection. Thus, the Tahsildar alowed the proposal of ba....
He would further submit that Batankan has already been made in the original Khasra No.222 but in the demarcation report, the said fact has been wrongly mentioned and he prays to allow the petition. 4. ... Therefore, the present civil suit bearing No.225A/2013 has been filed before 14th Civil Judge Junior Division, Raipur for permanent injunction without impleading RamKhilwan Parganiha. ... ), Raipur in pending Civil Suit No.225A/2013, was disallowed, wherein petitioner had also raised a demand for fresh demarcation. ... ....
(2) No application for demarcation of boundaries under section 24(1) of the Code shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by certified extracts from the maps, Khasras and Record of Rights (Khatauni) on the basis of which demarcation is sought, and the required amount calculated at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per survey number of the applicant as fee for demarcation has been paid by the applicant. (4) On the receipt of the application the concerned official shall check the application as to whether the requirements have been fulfilled or not. (3) If the application is for de....
Both the lower Courts appear to be right in holding that in comparison to the evidence of Prahalad (P.W.1) and his interested witnesses (bataidars) Lalji Keer (P.W.2) and Harnarayan Keer (P.W.3), the evidence of the defendants' witnesses Suresh Kumar (D.W.1), Laxminarayan (D.W.2), Manisha (D.W.3) and Devendra Kumar (D.W.4) was more reliable due to supported by revenue documents. It is clear from the certified copy of the order dated 25.5.2010 passed by the Collector, Narsinghpur in the revision case that the demarcation and batankan proceedings were cancelled by the Collector and t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
