Demarcation proceedings cannot be dismissed based on civil suits involving unrelated parties or different disputes.

The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking enforcement of a demarcation report dated 05.04.2025 regarding land at Gram Pansemal

On 29.05.2026, the High Court directed the Tehsildar to act on said report and restore possession if encroachment was found

Respondent No. 3 filed Interlocutory Application (IA) No. 6161/2026 seeking recall/modification of that order, alleging the petitioners suppressed: (i) the pendency of a civil suit (RCSA/32/2022), and (ii) an order dated 02.04.2026 by the Tehsildar dismissing the Section 250 revenue proceedings due to the said civil suit

The court found the Tehsildar’s dismissal was passed in the absence of both parties

1. Whether the order dated 29.05.2026 warrants recall or modification due to the alleged suppression of the pendency of a civil suit and a prior adverse revenue order

2. Whether the pendency of a civil suit involving different parties acts as a bar to revenue authorities conducting demarcation and possession proceedings under the M.P. Land Revenue Code

The Court applied the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, specifically Section 250 regarding the reinstatement of possession of bhumiswami improperly dispossessed

It relied on the established legal principle that demarcation is a technical process to ascertain physical boundaries as per revenue records and does not adjudicate absolute title

The Court emphasized the principle of Natural Justice, noting that revenue actions remain subject to the final outcome of competent civil litigation between the actual parties in interest

The Court scrutinized the Tehsildar’s order dated 02.04.2026 and found it "fundamentally flawed" because it dismissed the petitioners' application based on a civil suit (RCSA/32/2022) that did not involve the petitioners or the respondent as contesting parties

Since the suit was between third parties (Daudee and Smt. Badi Bai), it could not legally impede the petitioners' right to demarcation

The Court reasoned that because demarcation only identifies boundaries and does not settle title, the earlier directions to the Tehsildar to act on the demarcation report did not suffer from jurisdictional error

Consequently, the alleged suppression was deemed immaterial as the suppressed order was itself misplaced in law

The High Court dismissed IA No. 6161/2026, upholding the direction to the Tehsildar to proceed with identifying and removing encroachments based on the demarcation report within the stipulated timeframe

No order as to costs was made