Writ relief is unavailable for disputed land demarcation claims requiring statutory revenue remedies.

The petitioner claimed that the respondents had taken possession of approximately 0.15 decimal of land in excess of the area covered by the sale transaction concerning land situated at Village Sarekha, District Balaghat.

He sought allotment of alternative land or compensation at the prevailing market rate.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner approached the revenue authorities.

A Revenue Inspector submitted a report dated 9 November 2020, allegedly recording that the disputed excess land fell within the respondents’ boundary, and the Tehsildar subsequently passed an order under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (“MPLRC”).

The respondents contested the writ petition on the ground that the alleged encroachment involved disputed questions of fact and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under the MPLRC, including the statutory demarcation and appellate mechanisms.

Whether the High Court could grant writ relief concerning the alleged excess possession of 0.15 decimal of land when the claim involved disputed questions of fact regarding demarcation and encroachment.

Whether the petitioner was required to pursue the remedies available under Section 129 of the MPLRC, 1959 against the revenue determination made during the pendency of the writ petition.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to alternative land or compensation from the respondents for the alleged excess possession.

The Court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily inappropriate for adjudicating disputed questions of fact, particularly questions concerning land boundaries, demarcation, and alleged encroachment.

It further relied on Section 129 of the MPLRC, 1959, under which land demarcation is to be addressed by the competent revenue authority and may be challenged through the remedies provided under the Code.

The Court distinguished Ganga Retreat & Towers Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 12 SCC 91, and Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien E. Kalathil, (2000) 6 SCC 293, because, in the present case, the petitioner himself had pursued revenue proceedings and obtained an order during the pendency of the writ petition.

The Court held that determining whether the respondents had occupied land beyond the area purchased required adjudication of factual matters relating to the actual boundaries and demarcation of the property.

Although the petitioner relied on the Revenue Inspector’s report, the Court noted that the relevant revenue proceedings had culminated in an order of the Tehsildar under Section 129 of the MPLRC.

Once the petitioner had invoked that statutory process, any grievance regarding non-compliance with or correctness of the Tehsildar’s order had to be pursued before the authorities and remedies provided under the MPLRC, rather than through the pending writ petition.

The pendency of the writ petition for approximately eleven years did not justify granting relief in proceedings involving disputed land facts and an available statutory remedy.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to pursue any remedy available to him in law before the competent revenue authority.