Adherence to mandatory inquiry procedure and opportunity to lead evidence is essential for Section 250 MPLRC proceedings.

The petitioners, residents of Survey No. 455/2, claim to be rustic villagers in settled possession of approximately 70 Bigha of Government/Abadi land for over 50 years.

Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 purchased 0.8400 hectares of land from a predecessor-in-title (Karnu Jatav) and initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioners under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (M.P.L.R. Code).

The petitioners alleged that no proper demarcation was conducted, the identity of the disputed land was never established, and the Tahsildar failed to examine the Revenue Inspector or Patwari.

Both the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) and the Revisional Authority upheld the Tahsildar's order for eviction without allowing the petitioners to lead evidence or conducting a spot inspection.

Consequently, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus or certiorari to set aside the eviction orders.

1. Whether the Tahsildar followed the mandatory quasi-judicial procedure required under Section 250 of the M.P.L.R. Code before passing an order of eviction.

2. Whether the lack of a proper demarcation and the denial of an opportunity to lead oral and documentary evidence constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice.

The Court applied Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, which governs the reinstatement of a Bhumiswami improperly dispossessed.

Procedural mandate established in W.P. No. 8890/2026, which dictates that when a claim is disputed, the Tahsildar must: (a) frame specific issues; (b) afford parties an opportunity to lead oral and documentary evidence; (c) allow cross-examination of witnesses; and (d) properly exhibit documentary evidence before placing reliance upon it.

The Court observed that the Tahsildar and subsequent appellate authorities mechanically passed orders without establishing the identity of the land in question.

Applying the principles from its previous ruling in W.P. No. 8890/2026, the Court found that the Tahsildar failed to frame issues or examine official witnesses like the Revenue Inspector and Patwari to verify the demarcation.

The Court noted that the petitioners were denied an effective opportunity to cross-examine the respondents' witnesses or present their own defense, particularly regarding their claim of settled possession and construction under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana.

The rejection of applications for spot inspection and additional evidence by the SDO further demonstrated a breakdown of the mandatory enquiry process required by the Code.

The High Court quashed the orders of the Additional Commissioner (P-1), the SDO (P-2), and the Tahsildar (P-3) and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar/competent authority with directions to: (i) conduct a fresh adjudication; (ii) provide a full and effective opportunity to both parties to lead oral and documentary evidence; (iii) permit cross-examination; and (iv) conduct a proper demarcation in the presence of all parties before passing a reasoned order.