01Facts
The petitioner challenged orders dated 13 August 2024 and 30 January 2025, which confirmed a demarcation of Survey No. 45/4/2 at Village Karaiya, District Vidisha.
p. 2He contended that he and other adjoining landholders had not received proper notice before the demarcation conducted on 29 May 2024.
p. 2The Village Kotwar’s statement recorded on 1 July 2024 said that he had been unable to find the cultivators at home and had not reached them by telephone before the demarcation.
p. 2The Tahsildar confirmed the demarcation, and the Sub-Divisional Officer subsequently upheld the decision, without adequately addressing the Kotwar’s statement concerning service of notice.
p. 202Issues
i.1. Whether the revenue authorities adequately examined whether prior notice of the demarcation had been served on the petitioner and other adjoining landholders as required by Section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code.
p. 2ii.2. Whether the challenged orders should be set aside and the demarcation reconsidered after providing the concerned parties an effective opportunity to participate.
pp. 2–303Law Applied
Section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code governs demarcation proceedings and requires compliance with the prescribed procedure, including prior notice to adjoining landholders.
p. 2Where the record raises doubt about actual service of notice, the revenue authority must examine that issue before confirming the demarcation; preparation of a notice or an endorsement alone is insufficient without proper scrutiny.
p. 2The High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter for fresh proceedings.
p. 1, 3Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
MP Land Revenue Code 1959 Section 129
04Reasoning
The Kotwar’s statement that he had neither met the adjoining cultivators nor contacted them by telephone raised a material doubt about whether notice had actually been served before the demarcation.
p. 2The Tahsildar relied principally on the demarcation report, Panchnama, and notice submitted by the Patwari without properly examining that statement, and the Sub-Divisional Officer likewise failed to address the issue adequately.
p. 2Because compliance with the notice requirement had not been properly scrutinized, the Court held that fresh proceedings were warranted, while leaving the parties’ claims to title and possession undecided.
pp. 2–305Holding
The Court set aside the orders dated 13 August 2024 and 30 January 2025 and remitted the matter to the Tahsildar, Gulabganj, for fresh demarcation proceedings in accordance with Section 129.
p. 3The Tahsildar must duly serve prior notice on the petitioner, respondent No. 2, and other adjoining landholders or interested persons; afford them an effective opportunity to attend; and consider the Kotwar’s statement and the parties’ objections.
pp. 3–4The petition was disposed of, with no opinion expressed on title or possession.
p. 4Original Court PDF
Rakesh SinghvsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
