Ex parte proceedings are vitiated if notice service is defective or precedes the date of issuance.

The respondent filed an application under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, before the Tehsildar, seeking eviction of the petitioner from Survey No. 84 in Village Fattukhedi

The Tehsildar proceeded ex parte and ordered eviction on 25.09.2020, based on a revenue inspection report

The petitioner appealed to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), who set aside the Tehsildar’s order on 06.10.2021, noting that the notice showed a refusal date (27.07.2020) prior to the issuance date (28.07.2020) and that no actual demarcation had occurred

The respondent then appealed to the Additional Commissioner, who restored the Tehsildar's eviction order on 27.07.2023

The petitioner challenged these orders via a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

1. Whether the ex parte proceedings conducted by the Tehsildar were vitiated due to improper service of notice and violation of the principles of natural justice

2. Whether the Additional Commissioner erred in restoring the Tehsildar's order despite evidence of procedural irregularities

The court primarily applied the principle of Audi Alteram Partem (the right to be heard) under the doctrine of natural justice, which mandates that no person shall be condemned unheard

It further applied the procedural requirements for service of notice and the recovery of possession under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959

The court emphasized that a substantive defect in the service of notice renders subsequent proceedings legally untenable

The High Court found a fundamental procedural illegality regarding the service of notice. The record revealed an "irreconcilable inconsistency" where the endorsement of refusal was dated 27.07.2020, while the notice itself was only issued on 28.07.2020

The Court determined that this was not a mere technicality but a substantive defect that made the service unreliable, meaning the petitioner lacked legal notice of the proceedings

Consequently, the Tehsildar's decision to proceed ex parte violated the principles of natural justice

The Court further noted that the Additional Commissioner failed to address this vital procedural lapse, whereas the SDO had correctly identified that the findings were based on a non-existent or unsubstantiated demarcation report

It restored the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 06.10.2021

The Court held that the proceedings were vitiated by the denial of a fair opportunity to the petitioner to present evidence

Liberty was granted to the competent authority to proceed strictly in accordance with the law, ensuring proper service of notice and a fair hearing to all parties

No costs were ordered