Collector must decide the pending second appeal and compensation claim within two months.

The petitioner claimed ownership as Bhumiswami of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 715, Village Sajai, Tehsil Rannod, District Shivpuri. He alleged that Rajua Nai, whose adjoining land was Survey No. 717, had encroached upon Government land bearing Survey No. 714 and the petitioner’s land.

The petitioner initially sought demarcation under Section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (“MPLRC”), resulting in registration of Case No. 0002/A-12/2022-23. After an unsuccessful demarcation attempt, he submitted a further application, leading to registration of Case No. 0209/A-12/2024-25, and demarcation was carried out on 24 July 2024.

The petitioner thereafter alleged a further encroachment and filed an application under Section 250 of the MPLRC for restoration of possession, resulting in registration of Case No. 0008/A-70/2024-25.

He applied on 28 and 29 October 2024 for certified copies of the relevant records under Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Sewaon Ke Pradan Ki Guarantee Adhiniyam, 2010 (“Act of 2010”). Upon not receiving the documents within the prescribed period, he preferred an appeal under Section 6 and thereafter a second appeal, which remained pending before the Collector.

The Court applied Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Sewaon Ke Pradan Ki Guarantee Adhiniyam, 2010, concerning the petitioner’s claim to obtain certified copies within the prescribed statutory period, and Section 6, which provides the appellate mechanism against non-provision or delayed provision of a notified public service.

It also considered Sections 129 and 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, relating respectively to demarcation proceedings and restoration of possession to a Bhumiswami.

The governing procedural principle applied was that where the statutory second appeal remains pending before the competent authority, the High Court may direct that authority to decide it within a specified time rather than adjudicate the merits at the writ stage.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s second appeal was still pending before Respondent No. 2, the Collector.

Since the statutory appellate process under the Act of 2010 had not concluded, the Court declined to determine at that stage whether the authorities had unlawfully failed to provide the records or whether compensation was immediately payable.

Instead, it directed the competent statutory authority to decide the second appeal within a fixed period.

To ensure that the petitioner’s claim was fully addressed, the Court further directed the Collector to determine, in the same appellate proceedings, whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation for non-supply of certified copies within the prescribed time.

The order did not independently adjudicate the merits of the Section 250 MPLRC proceedings.

The Collector was directed to decide the petitioner’s pending second appeal within two months from the date of communication of the order.

While deciding that appeal, the Collector was also required to determine the petitioner’s entitlement to compensation for failure to provide the certified copies within the stipulated period.

No separate substantive direction was issued regarding the merits of the Section 250 MPLRC proceedings.