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

Respondent No. 1 sought demarcation under Section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, in respect of certain parcels of land situated at Gram Kakra, Tehsil Amarpatan, District Satna.

Demarcation was conducted on 15 June 2019 by preparation of a mauka panchnama.

Relying on that demarcation, respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 250 of the Code seeking restoration of possession, alleging that the petitioner was occupying his land.

The Tahsildar allowed the application on 12 April 2021; the Sub-Divisional Officer and Additional Commissioner affirmed the decision on 15 January 2022 and 4 March 2022, respectively.

The petitioner challenged the orders under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending that the demarcation was merely a spot inspection, that he had not been served notice, and that it was conducted in his absence in violation of natural justice.

Respondent No. 1 argued that the demarcation had never been challenged and had therefore attained finality.

Whether the legality of the 15 June 2019 demarcation proceedings, including the alleged absence of notice and violation of natural justice, could be challenged for the first time in proceedings under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code?

Whether the orders granting restoration of possession under Section 250, based on the unchallenged demarcation proceedings, suffered from any jurisdictional or legal error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution?

Whether confirmation of the 2019 demarcation by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 129(4), which became operative from 12 February 2020, was necessary in the present case?

Section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 governs demarcation proceedings; after the amendment introduced by Madhya Pradesh Amendment Act No. 23 of 2018, effective 25 September 2018, a grievance against demarcation is to be raised before the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 129(5).

A demarcation order must be challenged before the competent higher revenue authority in accordance with the Code; if it is not challenged, it attains finality and its legality cannot ordinarily be questioned collaterally in proceedings under Section 250.

The Court relied on Murloidhar and Another v. Board of Revenue, M.P. and Others, 2013 (3) MP LJ 184, which held that objections regarding want of notice or hearing in demarcation proceedings must be pursued by appeal or revision and cannot subsequently be used to invalidate possession-restoration proceedings based on the final demarcation order.

The Court further held that Section 129(4), which came into effect on 12 February 2020, did not require confirmation by the Sub-Divisional Officer of a demarcation conducted in 2019.

The Court held that the petitioner was aware of the demarcation conducted on 15 June 2019 but did not challenge it before the competent revenue authority under the applicable statutory remedy.

Consequently, any objections concerning lack of notice, absence during demarcation, or the alleged inadequacy of the mauka panchnama could not be raised collaterally in the Section 250 proceedings.

Applying the principle in Murloidhar, the Court treated the demarcation as final and found that the revenue authorities were entitled to rely upon it while ordering restoration of possession.

Since the demarcation predated the commencement of Section 129(4) on 12 February 2020, subsequent confirmation by the Sub-Divisional Officer was not required.

The impugned orders therefore disclosed no error warranting supervisory interference under Article 227.

It held that the unchallenged demarcation proceedings had attained finality and that their legality could not be questioned in the subsequent Section 250 proceedings.

The Court further held that confirmation under Section 129(4) was unnecessary because the demarcation had been conducted in 2019, before that provision came into effect.

The orders of the Tahsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer, and Additional Commissioner were affirmed, and the miscellaneous petition was dismissed.