Revenue authorities must pass reasoned orders addressing objections in demarcation proceedings.

The petitioners challenged the Tehsildar’s order dated 30 December 2024 in demarcation proceedings under Section 129 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, and the Sub-Divisional Officer’s appellate order dated 10 July 2025.

They contended that they were neighboring landholders entitled to notice, and that their objections had been rejected without proper consideration.

The respondents maintained that the objections had been considered; the Court found that the orders did not show any adjudication of those objections.

Whether the Tehsildar’s rejection of the petitioners’ objections was sustainable when the order did not disclose reasons or consideration of those objections.

Whether the Sub-Divisional Officer’s appellate order was sustainable where it repeated the Tehsildar’s reasons without independently addressing the objections.

Under Section 129 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, the demarcation proceedings were undertaken in this matter.

The Court applied the principle that quasi-judicial authorities must give reasons for their conclusions.

Relying on M/s Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, it reiterated that reasoned decisions promote fairness and transparency, constrain arbitrary decision-making, and facilitate judicial review; reasons must be cogent and cannot be mere “rubber-stamp” explanations.

The Court found that the Tehsildar’s order did not explain why the petitioners’ objections were rejected.

The respondents’ assertion that the objections had been considered was unsupported by any recorded adjudication.

The Sub-Divisional Officer likewise failed to address the objections independently, and the reasons in the appellate order were verbatim to those in the Tehsildar’s order.

Applying the requirement of reasoned decision-making, the Court held both orders unsustainable.

It remanded the matter to the Tehsildar for consideration of the petitioners’ objections and a self-contained speaking order, to be communicated to them within 60 days of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The petition was disposed of.