Sheopur Land Eviction Challenge Gets Fresh Hearing As MP HC Sets Aside Revenue Board’s Unreasoned Rejection

The petitioners challenged proceedings concerning Survey Nos. 466, 545, 491, 547 and 555 at Village Tulsaf, Sheopur.

They claimed longstanding possession as Shikmi Kastkars over land recorded as Aukaf land and relied on a civil-court judgment and decree dated 17 February 1990.

A Tehsildar had ordered their eviction under Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959; their challenges before the Sub-Divisional Officer and Additional Commissioner were unsuccessful. The Board of Revenue dismissed their revision on 2 September 2026.

In the present Article 226 petition, they argued, among other things, that the Board’s order was non-speaking and that the authorities had not considered their jurisdictional and other substantive objections.

Under Article 226, the High Court may review whether a decision-making authority has acted in accordance with the requirements of fair decision-making.

Judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authorities must give reasons when their decisions affect parties’ rights; reasons demonstrate consideration of relevant matters, guard against arbitrariness and facilitate judicial review.

The Court relied on Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, particularly paragraph 47, which sets out these principles and requires reasons to be cogent, clear and succinct.

Sections 248, 52 and 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, and the petitioners’ claims under them were raised in the proceedings but were not determined on their merits by the High Court.

The High Court considered the adequacy of the Board’s order, rather than resolving the underlying dispute over possession or the legality of the eviction proceedings.

Applying Kranti Associates, it held that the Board’s order could not stand because it did not adequately address the petitioners’ material contentions or disclose sufficient reasons for rejecting the revision.

Since those issues required consideration by the Board in the first instance, the appropriate course was to set aside its order and remit the matter for a reasoned decision after hearing the parties.

The High Court set aside the Board of Revenue’s order dated 2 September 2026 and remanded the revision for fresh consideration, directing the Board to hear the parties and pass a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the High Court’s order.

The petitioners were permitted to seek interim relief before the Board, and no coercive steps were to be taken against them pending the filing of that application.

The High Court did not decide the petitioners’ substantive claims regarding possession, the civil-court decree or the Tehsildar’s jurisdiction.