M/S Agrawal Infratech vs Hemlata Gehani Through Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Ashok Gehani

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86481
1 WP-27523-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
th
ON THE 28 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 27523 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010492802026
M/S AGRAWAL INFRATECH
Versus
HEMLATA GEHANI THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SHRI ASHOK GEHANI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aditya Ahiwasi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Aditya Adhikari - Senior Advocate with Ms. Prachi Tiwari -
Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri Nikhil Bhatt - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition is filed assailing the order dated 07.07.2026 (Annexure
P/1) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer whereby objections filed by the
petitioner have not been dealt with and order of demarcation passed by the
Tehsildar has been affirmed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased land bearing
Khasra No.71/2 situated at Daamkheda, Bhopal from the respondent No.1
vide registered sale deed dated 29.08.2012. The petitioner after purchased of
the land applied for Naksha Batankan. The Tahsildar vide order dated
30.03.2013 has sanctioned the Fard Batank and accordingly directed the
Patwari to proceed with the matter. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 filed an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 28-10-2026
18:41:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86481
2 WP-27523-2026
application under Section 115 of the MPLRC before the Additional

Collector, Bhopal for correction of Naksha in respect of Khasra No.71/1 area
0.8020 hectare, which is shown in the Naksha as 0.6800 hectare and the
Collector vide order dated 06.08.2024 directed the Sub Divisional Officer to
decide the claim of the respondent No.1. Pursuant to which, the respondent
No.2 has proceeded with the matter and found that the land bearing Khasra
No.71/3 area 0.07 acre and Khasra No.71/2 area 0.21 acre, total area 0.28
acre belongs to petitioner and land belongs to respondent No.1 in Khasra
No.71/1 area 1.70 acre will be enhanced 1.9 acre and remaining area 0.02
acre in Khasra No.78 belongs to Danish Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha will
be corrected. The Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 22.11.2025
directed for correction of the map accordingly. Being aggrieved by the order
dated 22.11.2025, the petitioner has filed an appeal under Section 44(1) of
the MPLRC before the Upper Collector, Bhopal. During the pendency of the
appeal, the respondent No.1 on the basis of correction of map as ordered by
the Sub Divisional Officer, has applied for demarcation of the land bearing
Khasra No.71/1 area 0.8020 hectare before the Tahsildar. The Revenue
Inspector and Patwari, as per the direction of Tahsildar has demarcated the
land and prepared the report, panchnama and field book on 22.01.2026. The
petitioner has submitted the objection in respect of the report and panchnama
prepared by the Revenue Inspector. The Tahsildar accepted the objection of
the petitioner and vide order dated 25.03.2026 directed the R.I. and Patwari
to again carry out the demarcation after considering the objections submitted
by the petitioner. Again the Revenue Inspector in a very same manner
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 28-10-2026
18:41:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86481
3 WP-27523-2026
demarcated the land bearing Khasra No.71/1 and affirmed the earlier

demarcation dated 22.01.2026 and found that in Khasra No.71/1 from area
0.8020 hectare, in area 0.2297 hectare land multi, shade and duplex are found
and in area 0.2125 hectare, the construction of Danish Hills Road and Plots
were found and in area 0.3539 hectare, the possession of the respondent No.1
is found. The petitioner as well as one Danish Grah Nirman submitted the
written objection in respect of the demarcation dated 06.04.2026. The
Tahsildar without considering the objections of the petitioner in proper
prospective specially during the pendency of the appeal filed by the
petitioner before the Upper Collector, vide order dated 24.04.2026 has
rejected the objections of the petitioner and one Danish Grah Nirmani Samiti
on the ground that there is no change in the possession of land belonging to
objectioners and their objections are baseless. After the order dated
06.04.2026, the Upper Collector vide order dated 18.06.2026 has dismissed
the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.11.2025 passed
by the respondent No.2 for correction of revenue entries for map.
3. The respondent No.1 has initiated the proceedings of Section 129
of MPLRC for demarcation of the land on the basis of the order dated
22.11.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 directing for correction of map.
During. the pendency of the appeal against the order dated 22.11.2025, the
order of the Sub Divisional Officer could not be complied with and the
proceedings under Section 129 of MPLRC were initiated by the Tahsildar.
Being aggrieved by the orders dated 24.04.2026 and 28.04.2026, the
petitioner as well as the Danish Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit have
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 28-10-2026
18:41:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86481
4 WP-27523-2026
raised objections. The respondent No.2 vide order impugned dated

07.07.2026 has dismissed the objections of the petitioner as well as the
Danish Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha. Hence, this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this
Court to the document i.e. an order Annexure P/8 dated 22.11.2025, which is
an order of correction of records, which has not been implemented till date
and the proceedings are still pending adjudication in a Revision before the
Commissioner, wherein vide order dated 07.07.2026, there is an interim
relief granted by the Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal. He submits
that until and unless the records are corrected, the demarcation could not
have been carried out. Objections to the aforesaid effect were filed before the
Sub Divisional Officer in detail, but the same has not been dealt with. It is
pointed out from the impugned order that the Sub Divisional Officer has
only recorded that he has gone through the records; the records of the
Tehsildar Court and has found that the objections were rightly rejected by the
Tehsildar. There is no independent application of mind by the Sub Divisional
Officer. The very purpose of filing an application under Section 129(5) of
the MPLRC will become redundant if the Sub Divisional Officer has not
assigned any reasons on the objections filed by the petitioner under Section
129(5) of the MPLRC.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently
opposed the contentions and submitted that a detailed order has been passed
by the Sub Divisional Officer and the objections filed by the petitioner were
considered. The Sub Divisional Officer has observed that the records were
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 28-10-2026
18:41:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86481
5 WP-27523-2026
perused, the objections were considered and arguments were heard and

thereafter the impugned order has been passed. This goes to show that the
objections raised by the petitioner were dealt with by the Sub Divisional
Officer.
6. However, the operative part of the impugned order dated
07.07.2026 does not reflect any application of mind by the Sub Divisional
Officer on the objections filed by the petitioner. The relevant portion of the
order is as under:

"
अधीन थ यायालय का मूल अिभलेख का अवलोकन कया गया।

अधीन थ यायालय ारा तुत सीमांकन आवेदन प ! म " सीमांकन

उपरांत ा$ आप %& के आधार पर पुनः सीमांकन हेतु दल ग ठत कया
,
गया ग ठत दल ारा %विधवत स *पूण, सीमांकन -या का पालन कर

पुनः सीमांकन कर .रपोट, तुत क 0 गई 2जसपर ा$ आप %& का

अधीन थ यायालय ारा %विधवत सुनवाई उपरांत िनराकरण कर

सीमांकन क 0 पु %4 क 0 गई है। 2जसमे कसी कार क 0 कोई !ुट

प .रल26त नह 7ं होती है। अतः उभयप 68 के तक 9 एवं अधीन थ

यायालय के मूल अिभलेख के पर 76ण उपरांत अनावे दका प 6 का तक ,

मा य यो ;य बनता है। अतएव अधीन थ यायालय का सीमांकन
0456/ -12/2025-26 28/04/2026
करण कमांक अ सीमांकन पु %4 दनांक

म " कसी कार क 0 कोई !ुट प .रल26त नह 7ं होने से आवेदक दािनश गृह

िनमा ,ण सहकार 7 सं था मया ,दत ारा संचालक ितलक कालबेल ारा

तुत अ @यावेदन एवं आवेदक मेसस , अ Aवाल इ Cाटेक ारा Dीमित

करण अ Aवाल ारा तुत आप %& अ @यावेदन वीकृत यो ;य नह 7ं होने

से िनर त कया जाता है। उभयप 6 सूिचत हो। करण समा $ होकर
"
दा०द०हो। आदेश क 0 ित अधीन थ यायालय क 0 ओर भेजी जावे।
7. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the
Sub Divisional Officer has not applied its mind and no reasons are assigned
while rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed
detailed objections which are reflected from the impugned order itself as the
objections were quoted by the Sub Divisional Officer, but the reasons for
rejecting the same have not been assigned by him. The reasons being
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 28-10-2026
18:41:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86481
6 WP-27523-2026
heartbeat of the orders passed by the authorities are required to be assigned

by the authorities. The said aspect was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. vs Masood Ahmed Khan
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, wherein it is held as under :-
"47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:-
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record
reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions
affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support
of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the
wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it
must also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid
restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and
quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the
decision maker on relevant grounds and by
disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a
component of a decision making process as observing
principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even
by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior
Courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to
rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of
reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually
the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the
principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be
as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All
these decisions serve one common purpose which is to
demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been
objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the
litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial
accountability and transparency.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 28-10-2026
18:41:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86481
7 WP-27523-2026
(k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid
enough about his/her decision making process then it is
impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to
the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and
succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is
not to be equated with a valid decision making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non
of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in
decision making not only makes the judges and decision
makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to
broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial
Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the
broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said
requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and
was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994)
19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of
Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to
Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which
requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for
judicial decisions".
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital
role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for
development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the
decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due
Process."
8. From the perusal of the aforesaid it is clear that the reasons are the
heart beat of the orders and even the quasi-judicial authorities are required to
pass reasoned orders after appreciating the grounds raised by the parties. As
there are no reasons assigned while rejecting the objections filed by the
petitioner, the impugned order dated 07.07.2026 passed by the Sub
Divisional Officer is unsustainable. It is hereby quashed. The matter is
remanded back to the the Sub Divisional Officer to reconsider the entire
matter as well as objections filed by the petitioner, give audience to all
affected parties and thereafter pass a fresh order. The entire exercise be
completed within a period of 90 days from today. The parties are at liberty to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 28-10-2026
18:41:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86481
8 WP-27523-2026
raise all the arguments before the Sub Divisional Officer.

9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed
and disposed off.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
sj

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 28-10-2026
18:41:19