Lawful statutory land exchange of village common land after due process cannot be challenged after thirty years.

The petitioner challenged an exchange of land sanctioned on 04.06.1996, wherein Government Charnoi (grazing) land in Village Rithaura Kalan was exchanged for private land (Survey No. 992) in Village Piparsewa belonging to respondent No. 3.

The petitioner alleged the exchange was illegal due to the absence of a valid Gram Panchayat resolution, violation of the statutory minimum grazing land requirement under Section 237(3) of the MPLRC, and abuse of official position by respondent No. 3, who was a Patwari at the time.

This is the second round of litigation; previously, the High Court in W.P. No. 2792 of 2020 directed the Collector to consider the petitioner’s representation.

The Collector (29.12.2022), Additional Commissioner (06.12.2023), and Board of Revenue (12.12.2025) all upheld the 1996 exchange.

1. Whether the exchange of Charnoi land sanctioned in 1996 was procedurally and legally infirm under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code.

2. Whether the challenge to the exchange order is barred by unexplained delay and laches.

3. Whether the exchange violated the principles regarding the protection of village common lands as laid down in Jagpal Singh and Hinch Lal Tiwari.

Section 237 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC), 1959, which empowers the Collector to set apart land for various purposes, including grazing, and provides for the alteration of such classifications.

Section 238 regarding Nistar rights and provisions of the Revenue Book Circular Part IV-3 governing the procedure for land exchange.

The precedents of Jagpal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2011) and Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi & Ors. (2001), which mandate the preservation of public resources held in trust for the community.

The Court found the challenge lacked merit primarily due to the extraordinary lapse of nearly 30 years since the 1996 order.

The exchange was not an arbitrary act but was based on reports from the Naib Tehsildar (24.01.1995) and SDO (28.01.1995), which confirmed that the private land offered was unsuitable for the owner's cultivation and that sufficient grazing land remained in the village.

The court dismissed the petitioner's claim regarding the lack of a Gram Panchayat resolution, citing "Resolution No. 3 dated 15.12.1994" as evidence of no-objection.

Regarding the distance of the exchanged land (10km away), the court ruled this was an administrative discretion not subject to judicial review unless patently arbitrary.

Arguments regarding current needs for public infrastructure like colleges or Gaushalas were rejected as they could not retroactively invalidate a decades-old vested right.

The court distinguished Jagpal Singh and Hinch Lal Tiwari, noting those cases dealt with illegal encroachments, whereas the present case involved a formal statutory administrative process.

The court emphasized that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 does not extend to re-appreciating evidence or conducting roving inquiries into 30-year-old disputed facts and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.