MP High Court Orders Demarcation in Land Dispute, Rejects Presumption of Mala Fide Against State Authorities

Jabalpur: The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in a significant ruling concerning civil procedure and property disputes, has set aside a trial court's order that refused to allow a court-appointed demarcation of disputed land. Justice G. S.Ahluwalia held that a trial court cannot reject an application for local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) simply because the petitioners have a private report or out of a presumption that government revenue authorities might act mala fidely because the state or a municipality is a party to the suit.

The order was passed on October 14, 2024, in Misc. Petition No. 2838 of 2024, filed by Smt Kalyani Devi and others against the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Municipal Council, Panna.

Background of the Dispute

The petitioners had filed a civil suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction, claiming that a canal constructed by the defendants was situated on their land, specifically in Khasra Nos. 387, 388, and 389 in Village Panna. The defendants, conversely, contended that the canal was not located on these specific Khasra numbers.

An earlier application for interim injunction (Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC) was dismissed by the trial court. The petitioners' appeal against this dismissal before the High Court (Misc. Appeal No. 1495/2022) was disposed of with the observation that the petitioners were free to obtain demarcation or produce evidence during the trial to prove any encroachment.

Following this, the petitioners obtained a private demarcation report which, according to them, supported their claim that the canal encroached upon the disputed Khasra numbers. They subsequently filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC before the trial court, seeking an official demarcation of the land by a court-appointed Commissioner, typically the revenue authorities.

Trial Court's Reasons for Rejection

The 3rd Additional District Judge, Panna, rejected the petitioners' application for court-appointed demarcation. The trial court reasoned that since the petitioners had already obtained a private demarcation report, and given that the suit was filed against the State Government and the Municipal Council, directing demarcation by revenue authorities might lead to the petitioners disputing the report on grounds of mala fides, thereby causing unnecessary delay.

Arguments Before the High Court

Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Shri Sanjay Agrawal, along with Ms. Ankita Singh Parihar, argued that the trial court's reasoning was flawed. They submitted that in cases involving boundary disputes or questions of encroachment, demarcation is often the only effective solution. They cited several Supreme Court and High Court judgments, including Shreepat Vs. Rajendra Prasad , Haryana Waqf Board Vs. Shanti Sarup , Kamal Singh and another Vs. Roop Singh , and Durga Prasad Vs. Mst. Praveen Foujdar , which emphasize the necessity of demarcation in such disputes. They further contended that there was no basis for the court to presume adverse intent (mala fides) on the part of the revenue authorities merely because the government entities were parties to the suit.

The Government Advocate, Shri Abhishek Singh, representing the State, supported the trial court's decision, arguing that the primary dispute was not a boundary dispute but whether the canal was situated on the specific Khasra numbers claimed by the petitioners.

High Court's Analysis and Ruling

Justice Ahluwalia , after hearing both sides, found that the trial court's decision constituted a "material illegality". The High Court noted that the defendants had not claimed ownership of the disputed Khasra Nos. 387, 388, and 389. Therefore, the core issue was whether the canal, constructed by the defendants, encroached upon land belonging to the petitioners. The court clarified that while the dispute might not be a strict "boundary dispute" in the traditional sense, determining whether the canal occupies the petitioners' Khasra numbers necessitates the identification and measurement of the land, which is precisely the purpose of demarcation.

Crucially, the High Court rejected the trial court's apprehension regarding potential mala fides of the revenue authorities. Justice Ahluwalia stated, "Merely because the State or Municipal Council is the party to the suit, it cannot be presumed that the Revenue authorities would act mala fidely. Bona fide action is to be presumed and not otherwise." The court observed that the petitioners were willing to proceed with official demarcation despite having their private report, taking the risk that the official report might not favour them. Any potential challenge to the official report on grounds of mala fides was a matter for the trial court to assess after the report is submitted, not a reason to deny the application for demarcation upfront.

Conclusion

Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 20.4.2024 and allowed the petitioners' application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. The trial court has been directed to proceed with the case in accordance with the law, which now includes facilitating the official demarcation of the disputed land as requested by the petitioners. This ruling reinforces the principle that courts should facilitate the collection of necessary evidence, such as official demarcation in land disputes, based on a presumption of regularity and bona fides of public authorities, rather than pre-emptively denying requests based on speculative concerns about future challenges.