### Summary of Ruling Revenue Authorities cannot adjudicate complex title disputes in summary proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC. ### Key Takeaway The High Court reaffirmed that Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, provides a summary remedy for restoration of possession; it does not empower Revenue Courts to resolve bona fide, long-standing disputes of ownership or title, which must be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court.

The petitioners are legal heirs of late Smt. Bhagwati Devi, who claimed ownership of a residential property in Shivpuri through registered sale deeds from 1940 and 1950

The respondents filed an application under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC), 1959, before the Tahsildar, alleging the petitioners had encroached on 198.73 sq. meters of agricultural land (Survey No. 215) in 1986

On 23.11.2002, the Tahsildar ordered dispossession

After a series of procedural challenges, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) set aside the Tahsildar’s order on 12.04.2007, holding that a dispute over a pre-1959 residential house involving title questions belongs in Civil Court

However, the Board of Revenue reversed the SDO's decision on 23.06.2014, primarily on technical grounds of limitation and maintainability

The petitioners challenged this reversal under Article 226/227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the Revenue Authorities have the jurisdiction under Section 250 of the MPLRC to adjudicate complex and bona fide disputes regarding title over long-standing residential property

2. Whether the Board of Revenue was justified in setting aside the SDO’s order on procedural grounds of limitation and res judicata despite a prior High Court liberty to file the appeal

Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which provides a summary remedy for the restoration of possession to a bhumiswami

The legal principle established in Govind Prasad & Ors. v. Anil Kumar (Dead) Smt. Neelam Singhal & Ors. (W.P. No. 2401 of 2005), which mandates that where bona fide disputes of title exist, Revenue Courts exercising summary jurisdiction cannot adjudicate ownership and must refer parties to a competent Civil Court

dismissal for want of prosecution does not constitute an adjudication on merits for the purpose of res judicata

The Court observed that the Tahsildar exceeded his jurisdiction by virtually deciding ownership of a residential property that had been held by the petitioners' family for decades under registered deeds

It reasoned that Section 250 is intended for summary restoration of possession and is not a substitute for a title suit, especially when the property is a dwelling house within municipal limits

The Court criticized the Board of Revenue for focusing on technicalities—such as the previous dismissal of an appeal for default—and ignoring the High Court's specific liberty granted in W.P. No. 5595 of 2006 to have the matter heard on merits

Since the SDO had correctly identified that the dispute requires a civil adjudication of rights, the Board’s interference was deemed legally infirm

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the orders of the Board of Revenue (23.06.2014) and the Tahsildar (23.11.2002), and restored the SDO’s order dated 12.04.2007. The parties were granted liberty to establish their title before a competent Civil Court, which shall decide the matter independently of the observations made by the revenue authorities