Dharmendra Singh Raghuwanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15533
1 WP-15518-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
th
ON THE 11 OF MAY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 15518 of 2026
DHARMENDRA SINGH RAGHUWANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Santosh Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Prince Shrivastava - Advocate for the respondents No.4 and 5.
Shri Dharmendra Nayak - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
It is humbly prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed and by
setting aside the order dated 15.04.2026 Annexure P-1 in which
order dated 02.05.2025Annexure P-2. Any other relief which this
Hon'ble court may deems fit may also be granted.
The brief facts of the case are that the predecessor-in-interest of
respondent Nos. 4 and 5, namely Surinder Kaur, had purchased land bearing
Survey Nos. 102/1 admeasuring 2.007 hectares and 103/2/2 admeasuring
2.302 hectares from Kutumbi Bhai of the present petitioner. Subsequently,
the said Surinder Kaur executed a registered sale deed dated 24.08.2022 in
favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in respect of the said lands. In the said sale
transaction, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 also relied upon a photograph indicating
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 5/11/2026
7:20:14 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15533
2 WP-15518-2026
possession by way of standing crop/structure near the boundary between

Survey Nos. 98/2 and 102/1 situated at Village Gajaar. The petitioner and his
family members are recorded owners and in continuous possession of
adjoining lands bearing Survey Nos. 98/1/1 admeasuring 2.259 hectares,
98/1/2 admeasuring 2.259 hectares, and 98/2 admeasuring 7.419 hectares,
having a total area of 57 Bigha. The said holdings are situated adjacent to
Survey No. 102, and the petitioner asserts that he has been in peaceful and
uninterrupted possession of his land since the time of his father and
forefathers for approximately 50 years or more. On 14.03.2023, respondent
Nos. 4 and 5 moved an application for demarcation of Survey Nos. 102/1 and
103/2/2, and the said demarcation was conducted behind the back of the
petitioner through a rover/machine-based survey, wherein the petitioner was
shown as encroacher over a portion of the said lands. Based on the said
report, proceedings were initiated before the Tahsildar, and notice was issued
to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared and raised objections to the
correctness and legality of the demarcation report. Subsequently, it was
mutually agreed that demarcation be conducted through the traditional Jarib
(chain-scale) method, pursuant to which Writ Petition No. 16289/2024 was
filed. This Hon’ble Court directed that demarcation be carried out through
the Jarib system. In compliance thereof, a demarcation team was constituted
and the process was initially fixed for 13.11.2024; however, it could not be
carried out due to standing paddy crop. The demarcation was ultimately
conducted on 21.11.2024, and a report was submitted on 13.12.2024. The
petitioner filed detailed objections to the said demarcation report on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 5/11/2026
7:20:14 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15533
3 WP-15518-2026
27.12.2024. Thereafter, on 29.04.2025, the petitioner submitted an

application seeking examination and cross-examination of the Revenue Land
Record Officer, Shri Sudeer Jain, and the concerned Patwari, on the issues
relating to the legality and veracity of the demarcation proceedings. The
matter was thereafter fixed for consideration of the said application;
however, without adjudicating the same, the authority proceeded to pass an
order on 02.05.2025 holding the petitioner to be an encroacher over the land
allegedly belonging to respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The petitioner challenged
the said order dated 02.05.2025 by filing an application under Section 129(5)
of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, raising several grounds
including, inter alia, non-consideration of the application filed under Section
32 of the MPLRC. Upon hearing, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer rejected
the said application under Section 129(5) vide order dated 15.04.2026,
whereby the order dated 02.05.2025 stood affirmed. Being aggrieved by the
order dated 15.04.2026, which has the effect of merging the order dated
02.05.2025, the present petition has been preferred.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
had duly filed a detailed objection before the competent authority and had
also preferred an application under Section 32 of the M.P. Land Revenue
Code, seeking summoning of the Revenue Inspector (R.I.) and the Patwari
who had conducted the impugned demarcation. The said application is well
maintainable in view of the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 10(2) of the
Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 43 of the M.P. Land Revenue
Code, which specifically empowers the petitioner to examine and cross-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 5/11/2026
7:20:14 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15533
4 WP-15518-2026
examine the persons who have carried out the demarcation proceedings, but

without deciding the said application, the order dated 02.05.2025 was passed.
It is further submitted that this Hon’ble Court in W.P. No. 16289/2024
had specifically directed that the demarcation of the land be carried out by
“Jarib”. However, in complete disregard and in violation of the said judicial
direction, the revenue authorities have conducted the demarcation through
mobile-based measurement, which is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and
unsustainable in the eyes of law. Such deviation from the specific mode of
demarcation directed by this Hon’ble Court renders the entire exercise
vitiated.
It is further submitted that the physical position of the field on spot is
straight (siddha), whereas the revenue authorities have carried out the
measurement in an oblique manner (tircha measurement), thereby causing
serious distortions and discrepancies in the actual area and boundaries. The
registered sale deed dated 24.08.2022 clearly reflects that Survey No. 102/1
is a straight demarcated field, and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 cannot be
permitted to travel beyond the recitals of the registered sale deed, which
binds them.
It is also submitted that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer has
erroneously rejected the petitioner’s application under Section 129(5) of the
M.P. Land Revenue Code merely on the ground that notices were issued and
demarcation was conducted in the presence of the petitioner. The authority
has failed to appreciate the specific objections raised by the petitioner that
despite objections being raised at the spot, the revenue officials proceeded
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 5/11/2026
7:20:14 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15533
5 WP-15518-2026
with an illegal and arbitrary demarcation.

It is further submitted that no proper boundary marks were fixed prior
to the commencement of demarcation. The Panchanama also does not
disclose the basis of “Timeda” and “Chaumeda” on which the petitioner’s
signatures were allegedly obtained. Even the field book does not reflect any
such demarcation criteria. The orders passed by both the authorities are thus
mechanical in nature, without proper application of mind and in complete
disregard of mandatory procedural requirements.
It is further submitted that the impugned demarcation is not a mere
exercise confined to the land of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, but has resulted in
grave civil consequences for the petitioner. On the basis of such defective
and illegal demarcation, the petitioner, who is in settled possession over his
own land bearing Survey No. 98/2, is being wrongly branded as an
encroacher. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the
impugned orders dated 02.05.2025 and 15.04.2026 deserve to be set aside in
the interest of justice. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Division Bench
of this Court rendered in the case of Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of M.P. and
Anr. reported in 2009 (2) MPHT 459.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No.4 and 5
submits that disputed question of facts has been raised by the present petition
which cannot be gone into writ jurisdiction and for which alternative
efficacious remedy is available with the petitioner to approach the Civil
Court.
Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 5/11/2026
7:20:14 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15533
6 WP-15518-2026
prayed for dismissal of present petition.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the entire demarcation
exercise has been conducted in violation of the specific directions of this
Court, as also contrary to the statutory scheme under Section 124 of the
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. It is submitted that proper
boundary marks were not first ascertained or verified, and the demarcation
has been carried out in a mechanical and arbitrary manner without adherence
to mandatory procedure.
The Division Bench of this Court in Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of M.P.
and another reported in 2009 (2) MPHT 459 has held as under:-
"Section 124 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 provides
construction of boundary marks of villages and survey numbers or
plot numbers. Aforesaid provision reads as under:
124. Construction of boundary marks of villages and survey
numbers or plot numbers.- (1) Boundaries of all villages shall be
fixed and demarcated by permanent boundary marks.
(2) The State Government may, in respect of any village, by
notification, order that the boundaries of all survey numbers or
plot numbers shall also be fixed and demarcated by boundary
marks.
(3) Such boundary marks shall, subject to the provisions
hereinafter contained, be of such specification and shall be
constructed and maintained in such manner as may be prescribed.
(4) Where the rules prescribed boundary marks of a specification
different from that prevailing in any village, the new specification
shall not be enforced in such village except upon application to a
Tehsildar made by not less than half the number of holders of land
in the village. When such application is made, the Tehsildar shall
have new boundary marks constructed throughout the village and
shall distribute the cost thereof proportionately among the holders
of land in the village in accordance with rules made under
this Code. The share of each holder shall be recoverable as an
arrear of land revenue.
(5) Every holder of land shall be responsible for the maintenance
and repair of the permanent boundary and survey marks erected
thereon.
Sub-section (2) of Section 124 of the Code provides that the State
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 5/11/2026
7:20:14 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15533
7 WP-15518-2026
Government may, in respect of any village by notification, order
that the boundaries of all survey numbers or plot numbers shall be
fixed and demarcated by boundary marks. Sub-section (1) of
Section 124 of the Code provides that boundaries of all villages
shall be fixed and demarcated by permanent boundary marks. The
aforesaid provisions are specific which provide two types of
boundaries, one of village and another of all survey number or plot
numbers in the village. The State has also framed rules regarding
boundaries and boundary marks, survey marks. Rule 2 of the
aforesaid Rules provides boundaries of all villages and boundaries
of survey numbers or plot numbers in villages notified under Sub-
section (2) of Section 124 shall be demarcated by:
(a) an unploughed strip 1.50 metre in width; or
(b) a dhura .50 metre high, 1.50 metre wide at the base and 1.00
metre at the top; or
(c) a strong fence or wall; or
(d) boundary stones.
Rule 3 provides that near each corner of a survey number or plot
number shall be erected two mounds or teelas pointing along the
field boundaries. The Rule 9 provides that between the 1st
November and the 15th December each year, the patel and patwari
shall jointly inspect every boundary or survey mark in each survey
number or plot number in the village and shall prepare a statement
in Form A of defective or missing marks, and shall give a written
notice in Form B to the holders concerned. Rule 13 provides how
construction and maintenance of boundary marks in the village
shall be regulated.
Aforesaid provisions specifically provide two types of boundary
marks, one of village and another of each survey number in the
village. The Revenue Officer performing work of demarcation of
plot ought to have firstly ascertained whether there are permanent
marks as per Section 124 of the Code or not and in absence of
such boundary marks, he was required to ascertain the correct
boundaries of nearby survey numbers and after ascertaining the
boundaries of such lands, three sides of disputed property, he
ought to have ascertained the correct location of disputed land and
only thereafter he ought to have submitted his report in the
Court........."

In the present case, a perusal of the record indicates that the
petitioner’s specific objections regarding incorrect mode of demarcation,
non-consideration of field realities, and failure to follow Jarib-based
measurement, have not been properly adjudicated. Further, the application
seeking cross-examination of material witnesses was also not decided before
passing the final order. The impugned orders thus suffer from procedural
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 5/11/2026
7:20:14 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15533
8 WP-15518-2026
irregularity and non-application of mind.

It is also evident that the earlier direction of this Court requiring
demarcation by Jarib method was not strictly adhered to in its spirit,
inasmuch as the process adopted does not appear to have fully complied with
the legal requirements governing boundary determination under the statutory
scheme. The approach adopted by the authorities is thus not in consonance
with the mandate of law.
This Court is conscious of the settled principle that disputed questions
of fact ordinarily ought not to be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction; however,
where the action of the authority is found to be in violation of statutory
provisions, principles of natural justice, and binding judicial directions,
interference under Article 226 is warranted to correct the jurisdictional error.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and considering the
legal position laid down in Jagdish Prasad (supra), this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law.
Accordingly, the order dated 15.04.2026 as well as the order dated
02.05.2025 are hereby set aside.
The matter is remanded to the competent Tehsildar for fresh
consideration in accordance with law. The Tehsildar shall ensure that the
demarcation proceedings are conducted strictly in conformity with the
provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, the rules
framed thereunder, and the binding directions issued by this Court. The
authority shall also duly consider and decide the petitioner’s pending
objections as well as the application seeking cross-examination, after
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 5/11/2026
7:20:14 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:15533
9 WP-15518-2026
affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.

Thereafter, the Tehsildar shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in
accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands
disposed of. No order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 5/11/2026
7:20:14 PM