A Panchnama ordered by an unauthorized authority does not constitute demarcation under Section 129.

The petitioner held a granite-mining lease over part of Khasra No. 28/1 in Village Silpatpura. It relied on a 2016 Panchnama, prepared following a demarcation arranged by the Director of Geology and Mining, and contended that earlier demarcations established encroachment on its leased land.

After proceedings concerning fresh demarcation—including an earlier writ petition and a remand to the Commissioner—the petitioner challenged orders directing fresh demarcation, arguing that the earlier demarcation had attained finality and that it had not been afforded a reasonable hearing. The State and respondents disputed that the Panchnama constituted a demarcation under Section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (MPLRC), and stated that a later demarcation had been confirmed by the Tehsildar on 15 July 2026.

Whether the 2016 Panchnama constituted a demarcation under Section 129 of the MPLRC, such that a fresh demarcation was impermissible

Whether the petitioner could challenge the later demarcation through the present writ petition, or should pursue the remedy under Section 129(5) of the MPLRC

Section 129 of the MPLRC governs demarcation of land. The Court held that a Panchnama prepared by a team acting on the direction of the Director of Geology and Mining—an authority not empowered to order demarcation under Section 129—did not amount to a statutory demarcation.

The Court further held that the petitioner could challenge the Tehsildar’s confirmation of the subsequent demarcation by invoking the remedy under Section 129(5) of the MPLRC.

The Panchnama relied on by the petitioner arose from a demarcation initiated on the Director of Geology and Mining’s direction, rather than through the process contemplated by Section 129. It was also undisputedly not signed by the Tehsildar.

The Court therefore concluded that it was not a valid demarcation under either the amended or unamended provision, and that the petitioner’s claim that an earlier statutory demarcation barred a fresh one was misconceived. Because the subsequent demarcation had been confirmed by the Tehsildar, the appropriate course was to challenge that confirmation under Section 129(5), rather than obtain relief in the writ petition.

It granted the petitioner liberty to challenge the Tehsildar’s confirmation dated 15 July 2026 under Section 129(5) of the MPLRC.