Service of notice evidenced by original records validates land demarcation and satisfies natural justice.

Respondent No. 5 initiated demarcation proceedings for land survey No. 693/1 (0.199 hectares), resulting in an order dated 10.05.2023

The petitioners’ objections to this were rejected on 30.05.2024.

Subsequently, proceedings under Section 129(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC) were initiated before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO/Respondent No. 3)

A team conducted a second demarcation, which the petitioners challenged, alleging it was performed "behind their back" without notice and that the resulting Panchnama was fraudulent

Concurrently, Respondent No. 4 initiated eviction proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC, leading to an eviction order by the Tehsildar

The petitioners’ application to set aside the demarcation was rejected by the SDO on 09.01.2025.

The petitioners filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the orders dated 30.05.2024 and 09.01.2025

1. Whether the demarcation proceedings were vitiated by a failure to serve notice upon the petitioners, thereby violating the principles of natural justice

2. Whether the SDO’s reliance on the demarcation report and subsequent rejection of the petitioners' objections was legally sound

Section 129(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC), which governs the procedure for challenging demarcation reports before the SDO

Section 250 of the MPLRC regarding the summary eviction of persons in unauthorized possession

fundamental principle of natural justice, which requires that no person be condemned unheard and that proper notice must be served to interested parties in revenue adjudications

The petitioners argued that the demarcation was illegal because the notice dated 11.06.2022 did not bear their signatures, claiming they were never informed of the date of demarcation

However, upon perusing the original records submitted by the State, the Court found an original notice dated 06.01.2022 that bore the actual signatures of the petitioners

The Court observed that the "unsigned notice" cited by the petitioners was merely a photocopy and held no evidentiary value against the original signed record

Furthermore, the Court scrutinized the Panchnama presented by the petitioners and found it to be an "afterthought" because it shared common signatures with the official Panchnama prepared by the revenue authorities

The Court reasoned that since the original record established service of notice, the petitioners were granted ample opportunity to defend themselves, and their claims of procedural irregularity were baseless

The Court concluded that the petition was devoid of merit as the petitioners failed to prove any legal or procedural infirmity in the SDO's orders

The Writ Petition was dismissed