Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Section 248 and Encroachment Removal Power - Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC) empowers Tahsildars to summarily eject unauthorized occupants from government land, especially in cases of encroachment. The proceedings are designed to be summary and do not determine ownership or title. For example, ["Gopal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"] states, the only lawful and permissible course to protect Government land is to initiate proceedings under Section 248, emphasizing its summary nature and the absence of ownership adjudication.
Procedural Requirements and Legal Validity - Several sources highlight that proceedings under Section 248 must follow proper legal procedures, including giving the encroacher an opportunity to be heard. ["RAJ SINGH BANJARE VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Chhattisgarh"] notes, the Tahsildar, Nandghat without complying with the provisions of Section 248 and without affording any opportunity of hearing, directly passed final order, rendering such orders illegal. Similarly, ["Ravindra Singh Sardar vs Lakhvindar @Lakkha - Madhya Pradesh"] confirms that if procedural norms are not followed, orders can be set aside.
Role of Panchanama and Evidence - Orders based solely on Panchanama prepared by Patwari or informal reports without proper demarcation or adherence to legal procedures are insufficient for eviction. ["Smt. Nagina vs Madhusudan - Madhya Pradesh"] states, the Tahsildar without settling the boundary dispute and merely on the basis of so-called inspection report rejected the application, indicating that proper demarcation and legal process are essential.
Jurisdiction and Limitations - The courts have clarified that Section 248 proceedings are meant for eviction of unauthorized occupants and not for adjudicating ownership rights. ["Gopal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"] and ["Preeti Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2021 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6422"] emphasize that ownership cannot be decided in these proceedings, and attempts to challenge ownership or title through Section 248 orders are not sustainable.
Order of Removal Cannot Be Based Solely on Panchanama - The main contention of the query is that an alleged encroachment cannot be ordered to be removed solely based on a Panchanama prepared by a Patwari. The authorities must follow proper legal procedures, including boundary demarcation, opportunity for hearing, and adherence to statutory provisions. Several cases, such as ["Smt. Nagina vs Madhusudan - Madhya Pradesh"], reinforce that orders based only on Panchanama without proper procedure are invalid.
Analysis and Conclusion:The collective insights from these sources establish that removal of encroachment under Section 248 of the MPLRC cannot be ordered solely on the basis of a Panchanama prepared by a Patwari. Proper legal procedures, including boundary demarcation and opportunity for the encroacher to be heard, are mandatory. Orders based only on Panchanama lack legal validity and can be challenged or set aside. Therefore, encroachment removal orders must be rooted in lawful, procedural compliance, not merely in informal reports or Panchanama.
References:["Gopal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"]["RAJ SINGH BANJARE VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Chhattisgarh"]["Ravindra Singh Sardar vs Lakhvindar @Lakkha - Madhya Pradesh"]["Smt. Nagina vs Madhusudan - Madhya Pradesh"]["Preeti Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2021 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6422"]
In land disputes involving government property in Madhya Pradesh, a common question arises: Can alleged encroachment over government land be ordered to be removed under Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code solely on the basis of a panchanama prepared by a Patwari? This issue frequently surfaces when revenue officials act swiftly on survey reports, leaving landowners questioning the legality of such actions. This blog post breaks down the legal framework, court rulings, and best practices to clarify why a standalone Patwari report typically falls short.
Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and is not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Alleged encroachment over government land cannot be ordered to be removed solely on the basis of a panchanama prepared by a Patwari under Section 248, unless proper legal procedures are followed, including initiation by a competent authority like the Tahsildar and adherence to due process. Raju Sharma VS State of M. P. - 2014 0 Supreme(MP) 52Prabhu Nath VS Board of Revenue - 1980 0 Supreme(MP) 49
Section 248 empowers summary eviction of unauthorized occupants, but it mandates involvement of the Tahsildar, who must order eviction after inquiry. A panchanama—essentially an evidentiary record from a site inspection by lower revenue staff like Patwaris—serves as supporting evidence but not the foundation for eviction.
Under Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, any person who unauthorizedly takes or remains in possession of government land may be summarily ejected by order of the Tahsildar. Raju Sharma VS State of M. P. - 2014 0 Supreme(MP) 52 This provision aims at quick removal but ties it to the Tahsildar's discretion post-procedure.
The code emphasizes: eviction requires a formal order after placing material before the Tahsildar. As one court noted, if there was any encroachment reported by the demarcation team, then it was obligatory on the part of the authorities to place the material before the Tahsildar and he could order ejectment of the petitioners in accordance with law. No such step renders actions illegal. Raju Sharma VS State of M. P. - 2014 0 Supreme(MP) 52
Patwaris conduct surveys and prepare panchanamas, but they lack eviction powers. A panchanama prepared solely by a Patwari, without the involvement or approval of a competent authority, does not constitute a valid basis for eviction under Section 248. Prabhu Nath VS Board of Revenue - 1980 0 Supreme(MP) 49
In practice, revenue cases like No. 9/A-68/12-13 were instituted based on Patwari reports (Ex.D-6), but courts clarified that possession can't be disturbed without due process. Ganesh vs Harjeet Singh - 2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6284
Courts have consistently struck down hasty evictions. In a key ruling, the court observed that demolition of boundary walls must follow due process, not mere Patwari reports: no such procedure has been adopted... rendering the action illegal. Raju Sharma VS State of M. P. - 2014 0 Supreme(MP) 52
Similarly, proceedings under Section 248 should be initiated and ordered by a Tahsildar, and that a Panchanama prepared by a Patwari alone does not constitute a valid basis for eviction. Prabhu Nath VS Board of Revenue - 1980 0 Supreme(MP) 49
Other cases reinforce this:- Proceedings under Section 248 were quashed where notices weren't properly served, and possession taken arbitrarily: authority cannot become the law unto themselves. Maa Kaila Devi Enterprises through its Partners VS State of M. P. - 2012 Supreme(MP) 197- In encroachment matters, Patwari reports led to orders, but appeals highlighted the need for Tahsildar initiation. Brajmohan vs Smt Prembai - 2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 42247- Even where encroachments were found, eviction required Aukaf Department approval for certain lands, not unilateral action. Kanchaniya VS Shiv Ram - 1992 Supreme(SC) 341
Civil court jurisdiction remains open for title disputes, as Section 257 doesn't fully bar suits post-Section 248 orders (post-2000 amendment). A person aggrieved can file directly without exhausting revenue appeals. Olpherts Private Ltd. Through Director B. D. Gautam, Katni VS Sarla Devi Mahila Mandal Through President Smt. Priyanka Yadav - 2024 Supreme(MP) 228
Broader precedents show procedural lapses are common pitfalls:
In one instance, land deemed government (allotted to highways) via Patwari report led to cases, but eviction needed full process. Ganesh vs Harjeet Singh - 2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6284
Section 162 settlements may interact but don't override Section 248 procedures. Padam Singh Sikarwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2018 Supreme(Online)(MP) 487
While strict, exceptions exist:- Integrated Process: If panchanama forms part of Tahsildar-initiated proceedings (e.g., with notices and hearings), it supports eviction. Vinod Kumar Hada vs District Collector - 2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 28440- Special Statutes: Other laws like Urban Land Ceiling or pre-1950 notifications may alter rules. Maa Kaila Devi Enterprises through its Partners VS State of M. P. - 2012 Supreme(MP) 197- Provisos: Section 248(1) proviso exempts certain old constructions in regions like Madhya Bharat before August 15, 1950.
However, arbitrary spot affixing of notices or skipping inquiries voids actions. Maa Kaila Devi Enterprises through its Partners VS State of M. P. - 2012 Supreme(MP) 197
Ensure hearings and formal orders.
For Affected Parties:
Proper adherence upholds rule of law: Government can resume possession only in a manner known or recognised by law. Maa Kaila Devi Enterprises through its Partners VS State of M. P. - 2012 Supreme(MP) 197
Evicting encroachments protects public land, but Section 248 demands procedural fairness. Relying solely on Patwari panchanamas invites judicial reversal, as seen in multiple precedents. Landowners should verify actions against competent authority involvement, while officials must follow protocols to avoid illegality.
Key Takeaways:- Patwari panchanama ≠ eviction order.- Tahsildar initiation is mandatory.- Courts protect due process; challenge violations.- Revenue records aid but don't decide title.
Stay informed on MP land laws to safeguard rights. For personalized guidance, contact a local advocate.
References:1. Raju Sharma VS State of M. P. - 2014 0 Supreme(MP) 52: Due process essential for demolition.2. Prabhu Nath VS Board of Revenue - 1980 0 Supreme(MP) 49: Tahsildar order required.3. Additional cases: Ganesh vs Harjeet Singh - 2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6284, Maa Kaila Devi Enterprises through its Partners VS State of M. P. - 2012 Supreme(MP) 197, Olpherts Private Ltd. Through Director B. D. Gautam, Katni VS Sarla Devi Mahila Mandal Through President Smt. Priyanka Yadav - 2024 Supreme(MP) 228, etc.
#MPLandRevenueCode, #EncroachmentLaw, #Section248
the order dated 08.03.2021 passed by the respondent no.3 which the penalty of Rs.5000/- has been imposed under section 248(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") and further directed to dispossess the petitioner from the Government land. ... from the Government land under section 248(a) of the #HL_STA....
Section 248 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 is reproduced herein-below :- “248. ... Gupta would submit that the petitioners are encroachers of government land, and therefore, the proceedings have been initiated by the Tahsildar according to the provisions of Section 248 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. ... In the present case, the Tahsildar, Nand....
In view of the aforesaid findings, the learned SDO directed the Tehsildar to register a case under Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code against both parties and to proceed in accordance with law. ... Once such a finding was reached on the basis of material collected in proceedings, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was justified in declining to declare possession in favour of either party and in directing initiation of proceedings under #H....
248 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 will take precedence than a settlement under Section 162(1) of the Code as claimed for. ... Therefore, a new Section 162 is proposed to be inserted in the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No.20 of 1959).” 9. ... may be permitted to invoke the provision of Section 162 of #HL_....
in question and accordingly under section 248 of Land Revenue Code, revenue case No. 9/A-68/12-13 (Ex.D-5) has been instituted against the plaintiff and as per Patwari report (Ex.D-6) the land in question was found to be government land which was allotted to National Highway No. 27. ... It is well settled principle that a person who possesses the suit land cannot be removed witho....
However, the Patwari report was obtained and after considering submissions, the petitioners were found to be encroachers, therefore, proceedings U/s 248 of M.P. Land Revenue Code were instituted. ... Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAM KUMAR proceedings U/s 248 of the Code and passed impugned order. ... Therefore, Tahsildar has rightly removed encroachment treating the matter under Section 248 o....
Learned counsel for the respondent /State submits that Section 248 of the MPLRC provides that : "Under Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, any person who unauthorisedly takes or remains in possession of any unoccupied land, service land or any other which has been set ... Land Revenue Code (referred to as "MPLRC" hereinaf....
.) -- Ss. 257 and 248(3) -- jurisdiction of civil Court -- order of dispossession passed on 23.2.2021 under section 248 -- omission ... [Para 16 In my considered opinion, if a person aggrieved by order under section 248 of the Code wishes to ... of sub-section (3) of section 248 by Amendment Act of 2000 -- effect of omission -- jurisdiction of civil Court on question of title ... in section 257 of the Revenue Code, ownership of #....
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Section 248(1) – Eviction - Special leave - Respondent No. 1 was ... No. 12/ 73 arising out of proceedingsinitiated by Shiv Ram, respondent No. 1 herein, against Malkhan under S. 248(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), for his ejectment from 19 Bighas 8 Biswas of land in village Juara, District Morena, Madhya#HL_E....
Land Revenue Code, 1959 and ordered for removal of encroachment within a period of seven days along with fine of Rs.1,000/-. The respondents no.5 and 6 remained unsuccessful in an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Maihar which was dismissed on 28.02.2023. ... THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VALLABH BHAWAN MANTRALAYA BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. THE COLLECTOR M....
At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in para 12, the first appellate Court has found the plaintiff in possession of the suit land and therefore it was directed that plaintiff shall not be dispossession from the suit land except by due process of law. Therefore, under such circumstances, plaintiff's claim may be ordered to be considered in the light of provisions contained under section 162 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 as amended vide Madhya Pradesh Bill No. 19 of 2013 as the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 2013, published ....
16. Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 prescribes penalty for unauthorizedly taking possession of land. Hence, the Tahsildar had no power and authority to initiate proceedings under section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The aforesaid Section also gives powers to the Tahsildar for summery ejection. Because, the petitioners and other persons made encroachments over the land, hence, the Tahsildar, Nazul initiated proceedings under Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter refer....
It is urged that though within the power of Tehsildar under section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 no action is being taken despite of he being apprised of the said encroachment. 2. It is contended that Khasra No. 848 and other government land in the market place of village Sarasdoli is being encroached upon by the persons having no authority to occupy the government land.
A notice under Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh State Revenue Code was issued to Chhedilal Gupta when he started construction of a house on the aforesaid land. In the said case an order was passed imposing a fine of Rs. 1500/- along with an order of eviction from the land against Chhedilal Gupta. In the said suit it was alleged that 0.53 decimal of land was sold to one Chhedilal Gupta by Mahadev Prasad Richharia, the father of the appellant-plaintiff in the year 1945 from Khasra No. 1709 consisting of 1.84 acres of land.
The same is also barred by Section 257 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The suit was filed without complying the provisions of Section 80 of CPC and contrary to Section 34 of Specific Relief Act without praying the relief for possession.
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
