Participation and consideration of objections defeat a natural-justice challenge to demarcation orders.

Respondent No. 1 sought demarcation under Section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, of specified lands at Village Bamhouri, District Satna.

The Revenue Inspector and Patwari conducted the demarcation on 11 November 2024. The petitioners participated and filed objections, including objections concerning the use of the original settlement map and the correlation of the field position with revenue records.

The Tehsildar accepted the demarcation report by order dated 10 January 2025; the Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the petitioners’ appeal on 16 March 2026. A consequential notice was issued on 18 May 2026. The petitioners challenged these actions under Article 226 of the Constitution

Whether the petitioners were denied an opportunity to present their case in the demarcation proceedings

Whether the Tehsildar’s and Sub-Divisional Officer’s orders disclosed an illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution

Section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, provides the statutory basis for revenue demarcation proceedings

The Court applied the principle that a party given notice and an opportunity to participate, whose objections are considered by the competent authorities, cannot establish a denial of hearing on those facts

It further held that interference under Article 226 was not warranted absent illegality in the impugned orders

The Court found that the petitioners had notice of the demarcation, participated in it, and submitted objections.

It also found that the Tehsildar considered the demarcation report and that the appellate authority examined the matter before dismissing the appeal. On that record, the petitioners’ claim that they had been denied an opportunity to present their case was untenable, and the Court found no illegality justifying writ interference

It dismissed the writ petition as without merit