Substantial compliance with substituted service rules validates proceedings despite minor technical deficiencies in the affixation report.

Following a complaint regarding the encroachment of government land (Survey Nos. 1834/1 and 1842/1), the Tahsildar, Dabra, initiated proceedings under Section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (MPLRC).

Based on an enquiry report by the Patwari, the Tahsildar passed an order on 27.05.2014, declaring the petitioner an encroacher and imposing a penalty of ₹97,543.

The petitioner’s first appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) was dismissed on 29.10.2014, and a subsequent second appeal to the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, was dismissed on 08.05.2019.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226, contending that the initial proceedings were conducted ex parte without proper service of summons, alleging that the service by affixation was procedurally deficient under the statutory rules.

1. Whether the service of notice by affixation was legally valid under the Rules of Procedure of Revenue Officers despite the omission of certain witness details in the report.

2. Whether the concurrent findings of the revenue authorities regarding encroachment and penalty warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The court primarily applied Section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, regarding the summary eviction of persons occupying land without authority.

It further relied on the Rules of Procedures of Revenue Officers and Revenue Courts formulated under Section 258(2A) and (2C) of the Code, specifically Rules 4 through 8 of Schedule I.

Rule 7 permits service by affixation if personal service cannot be effected, and Rule 8 mandates that the serving officer return the original summons with a report specifying the circumstances of affixation and the names and addresses of witnesses.

Additionally, the court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or gross illegalities and does not extend to the re-appreciation of evidence.

The Court examined the original revenue records and determined that the Tahsildar had indeed issued notices, which the petitioner refused to accept personally.

This refusal necessitated the serving officer to employ substituted service by affixation at the petitioner’s residence in the presence of witnesses.

While the petitioner argued that the affixation report was invalid for failing to list the complete addresses of witnesses as required by Rule 8, the Court held that there was "substantial compliance" with the procedure.

The Court reasoned that technical omissions in a report do not vitiate proceedings when the material on record demonstrates that the petitioner had actual knowledge of the matter.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had actively participated in subsequent appeals, where the findings of the Tahsildar were independently affirmed.

Since the petitioner failed to demonstrate any patent illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of the lower authorities, the Court found no grounds to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction.

The Court concluded that the impugned orders passed by the Tahsildar, SDO, and Commissioner did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or infirmity.

Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed, and the penalty and encroachment findings were upheld.