Failure to formally substitute legal representatives is curable and does not automatically vitiate proceedings.

The appellant, claiming ownership of Khasra No. 783/3, Barela, Jabalpur under a registered sale deed dated 12 September 2012, instituted proceedings under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, seeking restoration of possession from Late Ramesh Sen and, subsequently, his widow Kamla Bai Sen, alleging encroachment. The Naib Tahsildar rejected the application on 1 August 2019, and the Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the first appeal on 3 February 2021, holding that the respondents’ side had been in possession for more than six months and that Section 250 was therefore unavailable

In second appeal, the Additional Commissioner reversed those orders and allowed the appellant’s claim on 11 November 2024. During the proceedings, Kamla Bai Sen died. Notice was directed to be issued to Sonelal Sen, stated to be in occupation after her death, and was served through paper publication; however, the final order continued to show Kamla Bai Sen as the contesting respondent. The Additional Tahsildar thereafter passed an eviction order on 14 November 2024. Netram Sen, claiming to be Kamla Bai Sen’s legal representative, challenged both orders in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition, holding that the Additional Commissioner had improperly reversed concurrent factual findings and that the proceedings were affected by want of proper notice to the legal representatives

Whether the failure to formally amend the cause title and substitute the correct legal representatives of deceased Kamla Bai Sen rendered the second appellate proceedings a nullity for violation of natural justice?

Whether the application under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code was maintainable when the respondents’ side was allegedly in possession for more than six months?

Whether the Additional Commissioner was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of the Naib Tahsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer regarding the duration of possession?

Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 provides the statutory basis for restoration of possession in the circumstances contemplated by that provision, including the applicable six-month limitation or threshold concerning the period of dispossession or possession.

The principles governing abatement and substitution of legal representatives are procedural and must generally be applied liberally to advance substantial justice; a formal defect in the cause title does not automatically nullify proceedings where effective or substituted service has occurred. The Court relied on Om Prakash Gupta v. Satish Chandra, 2025 INSC 183, and Kishorilal v. Gopal, decided on 12 January 2026, for the principle that non-completion of formal substitution or amendment may constitute a curable procedural defect rather than a jurisdictional nullity.

Revenue authorities are required to determine, in the first instance, disputed factual questions relating to possession and the applicability of Section 250.

The Court held that the continuation of Kamla Bai Sen’s name in the cause title, despite notice having been issued through paper publication to the person stated to be in occupation, was a curable procedural defect and did not, by itself, invalidate the second appeal.

However, the central question of when the respondents’ side entered possession was materially disputed: the Naib Tahsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer had concurrently found possession for more than six months, whereas the Additional Commissioner had taken a contrary view. Since the correctly substituted legal representatives had not received a full opportunity to address that factual issue before the Additional Commissioner, the High Court declined to decide the maintainability of the Section 250 proceedings itself. It considered that the issue should first be determined by the competent revenue authority after proper substitution and hearing.

Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14 May 2026 and the Additional Commissioner’s order dated 11 November 2024 were set aside. Case No. 837/Appeal/2020-21 was remanded to the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, for fresh decision in accordance with law, preceded by formal substitution of the correct legal representatives of Kamla Bai Sen and an adequate hearing to them. The writ appeal was disposed of accordingly.