Participation of adult family member in revenue proceedings constitutes valid notice, precluding condonation of delay.

The petitioner challenged a partition (Batankan) order dated 30.11.2013 and subsequent appellate/revisional orders confirming it.

Respondent No. 3 applied for Batankan of Survey Nos. 45/3 and 73/3. The petitioner, owner of adjoining Survey No. 45/1/2, alleged he received no notice and that a portion of his self-acquired land was wrongly included in Survey No. 45/3 due to clerical and mapping errors.

The revenue authorities rejected the petitioner’s appeal primarily because his father, Imratlal, had signed the Fard Batankan and appeared in proceedings on 30.10.2013.

The petitioner argued that as the land was self-acquired, his father's participation could not legally bind him or trigger the limitation period, which led to a delay in filing the appeal on 16.06.2015.

1. Whether the concurrent findings of the revenue authorities regarding the bar of limitation and the sufficiency of notice through the petitioner's father warrant interference under Article 226.

2. Whether the High Court should adjudicate disputed questions of revenue mapping and area measurement when an alternative statutory remedy exists.

The court applied the principle of valid service under Order V Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which recognizes service upon an adult family member as due service.

Findings of fact cannot be re-appreciated unless they are patently illegal, arbitrary, or perverse.

Rule of "exhaustion of alternative remedy," specifically citing Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, which provides a dedicated statutory mechanism for the correction of revenue entries and maps.

The Court refused to disturb the factual findings that the petitioner’s father participated in and signed the Batankan proceedings. It reasoned that such concurrent findings of fact regarding notice and limitation are binding in writ jurisdiction unless proven perverse, which the petitioner failed to do.

The Court rejected the argument that the self-acquired nature of the property precluded the father from representing the family interest for the purposes of service of notice.

Regarding the mapping errors and area discrepancies (where Survey No. 45/3 allegedly grew from 0.366 to 0.6480 hectare), the Court determined that these involve disputed questions of measurement. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner must invoke the specific statutory remedy under Section 115 of the MP Land Revenue Code rather than seeking extraordinary relief under Article 226.

The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority under Section 115 of the MP Land Revenue Code for correction of revenue records and maps and directed both parties to maintain status quo regarding the nature, possession, and boundaries of the land for fifteen days.