Section 115 vests revenue-map correction jurisdiction exclusively in the Sub-Divisional Officer, not the Tehsildar.

The appellant owned agricultural land at Village Lasudia Parmar, Indore, purchased by registered sale deed in 2016 and mutated in its name in 2017

Respondents 1–3 sought demarcation of Survey No. 69/1/1/2 under Section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

The Tehsildar dismissed their application, finding discrepancies between the revenue records and map and stating that lawful demarcation required prior map correction under Section 115

The Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the respondents’ appeal as not maintainable because no demarcation report had been confirmed.

In the respondents’ writ petition, the Single Judge directed the Tehsildar to correct the map under the SDO’s supervision and then conduct demarcation.

The appellant, impleaded as respondent, challenged that order and the dismissal of its review application in this appeal

Whether the Single Judge’s direction could stand when it was made without notice to the appellant, despite the appellant being a party to the writ petition

Whether the direction to the Tehsildar to correct the revenue map was consistent with the jurisdiction and requirements prescribed by Section 115 of the Code

Whether the respondents’ appeal under Section 129(5) was maintainable when the Tehsildar had dismissed the demarcation application without confirming a demarcation report

The Court applied Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, holding that authority to correct a revenue map lies with the Sub-Divisional Officer and that prior written sanction of the Collector is required to correct an entry more than five years old

It treated Section 110(4) as concerning mutation, not correction of revenue maps

Under Section 129(5), as construed by the Court, an appeal lies only against an order confirming a demarcation report

The Court also applied the principle of natural justice that an adverse order affecting a party’s property rights should not be made without giving that party an opportunity to be heard

The appellant had been impleaded in the writ petition, but the Single Judge made a final order on the first day without notice; the Division Bench held that this denied the appellant a hearing before an adverse direction affecting its property interests

The direction also assigned map correction to the Tehsildar, although the Court held that Section 115 vested that authority in the SDO, and no prior Collector sanction for correcting an entry more than five years old was on record

The Court further found that Section 110(4), relied on by the writ petitioners, concerned mutation rather than map correction

It considered the undisclosed 2001 sale deed material to the boundary dispute and treated its non-disclosure as suppression of facts

Finally, because the Tehsildar had dismissed the demarcation application rather than confirmed a demarcation report, the Court upheld the SDO’s conclusion that the Section 129(5) appeal was not maintainable