Unchallenged demarcation attains finality and cannot be assailed in Section 250 proceedings.

The respondents claimed rights over land bearing Khasra No. 130/1, admeasuring 0.008 hectare, and initiated demarcation proceedings under Section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

A spot demarcation and mauka panchnama were prepared, pursuant to which the respondents alleged that the petitioner was occupying their land and filed an application under Section 250 of the Code for restoration of possession.

The Tehsildar, Sausar, rejected the application on 02.11.2019. In appeal, the Sub-Divisional Officer set aside that order and allowed the respondents’ application on 13.08.2020; the Additional Commissioner affirmed the decision on 30.11.2021.

Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that the alleged demarcation was merely a spot inspection, was conducted without notice or hearing, and could not form the basis of proceedings under Section 250. It was also argued that Section 250 was inapplicable because construction existed on the disputed land.

The respondents maintained that the demarcation had not been challenged and had therefore attained finality.

Whether the petitioner could challenge the validity of the demarcation proceedings, including the alleged absence of notice and hearing, in proceedings under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code after failing to challenge the demarcation before the competent higher revenue authority?

Whether confirmation of the demarcation by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 129(4) was necessary where the demarcation had been conducted in 2016, before the relevant provision came into force?

Whether proceedings under Section 250 of the Code were maintainable for restoration of possession where construction had been made over the disputed land situated in a rural area?

The Court applied Section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, governing demarcation proceedings, and held that a person aggrieved by such proceedings must challenge them before the appropriate higher revenue authority rather than collaterally attacking them in subsequent Section 250 proceedings.

Following Murlidhar and Another v. Board of Revenue, M.P. and Others, (2013) 3 MPLJ 184, the Court reiterated that an unchallenged demarcation order attains finality and may lawfully form the basis for restoration of possession.

After the 2018 amendment to Section 129, an objection to demarcation is required to be raised under Section 129(5) before the Sub-Divisional Officer; previously, the relevant challenge could be brought under Sections 44 or 50 of the Code.

The Court further held that Section 129(4), which came into force on 12.02.2020, did not require confirmation of a demarcation completed in 2016.

Section 250 was held applicable even where construction existed on the land, provided the land was situated in a rural area.

The Court found that the petitioner had knowledge of the demarcation proceedings but had not challenged them by appeal, revision, or an application under the applicable provisions of the Code.

Consequently, the demarcation had attained finality, and its legality—including the petitioner’s objections regarding notice, hearing, and the nature of the proceedings—could not be reopened collaterally in the Section 250 proceedings.

The Court also rejected the objection based on Section 129(4), since the demarcation was conducted in 2016, whereas the confirmation requirement became operative only on 12.02.2020.

Finally, the existence of construction did not exclude the operation of Section 250 in respect of rural land; therefore, the revenue authorities were competent to order restoration of possession on the basis of the finalized demarcation.

No subsequent confirmation under Section 129(4) was required, and Section 250 was applicable notwithstanding the construction on the disputed rural land.

Finding no jurisdictional or legal error in the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Commissioner, the Court affirmed both orders and dismissed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.