Tehsildar lacks jurisdiction to correct revenue records and maps under Section 115 of the MPLRC.

Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 70 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (MPLRC), 1959, seeking ownership and allotment of separate survey numbers for his alleged share in specific land parcels

The Petitioner challenged the orders dated 10.06.2024 (Additional Tehsildar) and 06.08.2024 (Additional Collector), which dismissed his objections regarding a spot inspection report and apportionment of shares

The Petitioner alleged gross procedural irregularities, including the issuance of a proclamation before the case was instituted, failure to serve notices, and the preparation of an ex-parte Patwari report behind his back

Respondent No. 1 argued that the Petitioner was aware of the proceedings and that the current application was necessary to correct a previous fraudulent "batankan" (sub-division) order dated 12.10.2018

The Petitioner also raised a jurisdictional challenge, asserting that the power to correct maps and revenue records lay with the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) under Section 115, not the Tehsildar

1. Whether the authority (Additional Tehsildar) who passed the primary order was vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate matters involving the correction of revenue records and maps

2. Whether the impugned proceedings were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice due to the alleged non-service of notice

Section 115 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, which mandates that the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) is the competent authority to correct wrong or incorrect entries in land records, including map entries, after conducting an inquiry and obtaining a report from the Tehsildar

principles of natural justice, which require that all interested parties be afforded a fair opportunity of hearing and proper service of notice before any adverse report or order is finalized

The Court examined the nature of the relief sought by Respondent No. 1 and concluded that the dispute essentially pertained to the correction of revenue records and maps based on the apportionment of holdings and possession

It observed that such corrections are governed strictly by Section 115 of the MPLRC, which vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO)

The Court held that the Tehsildar’s attempt to exercise this power, and the subsequent affirmation by the Revisional Authority, suffered from a "jurisdictional infirmity"

It further criticized the Revisional Authority for passing a cryptic and mechanical order that failed to address the material irregularities or the lack of jurisdiction

the Court found that the entire proceeding conducted by the Tehsildar under Section 70 was legally unsustainable as it bypassed the statutory authority designated for record correction

The matter was relegated to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Morar, to be treated as a fresh adjudication under Section 115 of the MPLRC. The SDO was directed to follow due procedure, consider all objections, and pass a reasoned order without being influenced by previous observations. The parties were ordered to appear before the SDO on 20.04.2026