Demarcation must strictly adhere to court-directed traditional methods and comply with mandatory procedures under Section 124 MPLRC.

The petitioner, an owner of land in Survey No. 98/2 at Village Gajaar, challenged a demarcation report initiated by respondents Nos. 4 and 5 (owners of adjacent Survey Nos. 102/1 and 103/2/2).

Previously, in W.P. No. 16289/2024, the High Court directed that demarcation be conducted using the traditional "Jarib" (chain-scale) method.

However, the revenue authorities allegedly used a mobile/machine-based survey and conducted the process behind the petitioner's back.

The petitioner filed objections and an application under Section 32 of the MPLRC to cross-examine the Revenue Land Record Officer and Patwari.

On 02.05.2025, the Tahsildar declared the petitioner an encroacher without adjudicating the cross-examination application.

This was subsequently affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) on 15.04.2026 under Section 129(5) of the MPLRC.

The petitioner moved the High Court under Article 226.

The court primarily applied Section 124 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC), 1959, which mandates the fixation and maintenance of permanent boundary marks for villages and survey numbers.

The court relied on the Division Bench precedent in Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. and Anr. (2009), which establishes that a Revenue Officer must first ascertain permanent marks or nearby boundaries before submitting a demarcation report.

The court invoked Section 43 of the MPLRC read with Order XXVI Rule 10(2) of the CPC regarding the power to examine and cross-examine persons conducting local investigations.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India to correct jurisdictional errors involving violations of natural justice or judicial directions.

The Court observed that the revenue authorities ignored the specific judicial mandate from W.P. No. 16289/2024 to use the "Jarib" method, opting instead for an arbitrary mobile-based survey.

The Court found that the Tahsildar committed a procedural irregularity by passing a final order without first deciding the petitioner's application under Section 32 for the cross-examination of the Revenue Inspector and Patwari.

Applying the Jagdish Prasad ratio, the Court noted that the authorities failed to verify "Timeda" and "Chaumeda" (boundary marks) as required by Section 124, rendering the demarcation mechanical and legally unsustainable.

The SDO’s affirmation was also found to be an error of non-application of mind, as it failed to address the deviation from the Court's earlier directions.

The Court set aside the orders dated 15.04.2026 and 02.05.2025 and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar with directions to conduct fresh demarcation strictly in accordance with the MPLRC and the "Jarib" method.

The Tahsildar was specifically ordered to adjudicate the petitioner’s pending objections and the application for cross-examination after providing an adequate hearing to all parties.