Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Pratap Singh Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25784
1 WP-34056-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
WRIT PETITION No. 34056 of 2025
AMIT PRATAP SINGH KUSHWAH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Harish Dixit - Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri S.K.Shrivastava
- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vivek Khedkar - Sr. Advocate/Additional Advocate General
assisted by Shri Rishabh Singh - Advocate for respondent/State.
Shri Bhupendra Singh Dhakad - Advocate for the caveator.
Reserved on : 10/09/2025
Delivered on : 13/10/2025
ORDER
With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 12.09.2024
(Annexure-P/2) passed by respondent No.4, whereby the demarcation in
respect of the government land bearing Khasra Nos.2711, 2715 situated
at Tehsil Lahar, District Bhind, has been allowed and the demarcation
report submitted has been accepted.
3. Petition also challenges the order dated 18.08.2025 (Annexure-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25784
2 WP-34056-2025
P/1) passed by respondent No.3, whereby the application submitted by
the petitioner against the order dated 12.09.2024 in terms of provisions
contained under Section 129(5) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959,
has been rejected.
4. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as
under:
4.1Petitioner herein claims himself to be the owner of the
property situated on the land bearing Survey No.2729, Lahar, District
Bhind, which is stated to have been purchased by him vide sale deed
dated 23.03.1993. It is the case of the petitioner that under the political
influence, a complaint came to be filed by one Ex-Councillor of Ward
No.12 before the Collector, Bhind that the father of the petitioner had
encroached upon the government land by raising permanent construction
and installing an iron gate, on the public way, which was being used by
the residents for their movement which deserves to be removed, in the
public interest. The said complaint made by the Ex-Councillor was
referred to respondent No.5, who in turn vide communication dated
04.07.2024 requested the Tehsildar, Lahar to hold the demarcation of
the government land bearing Survey Nos.2711 and 2715, so that the
complaint pertaining to encroachment on government land could be
disposed.
4.2On the said communication, the Tehsildar constituted a team of
the Revenue Officers for holding the process of demarcation and the
demarcation of the land in question commenced on 18.07.2024 and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25784
3 WP-34056-2025
concluded on 20.07.2024. A report of demarcation was submitted. The
objections to the said report were considered and rejected and thereafter,
the impugned order dated 12.09.2024 was passed by the Tehsildar which
came to be affirmed vide order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the
respondent No.3.
5. Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the
entire proceedings of holding of demarcation of the lands in question
stands vitiated, as the same was conducted under the political influence.
Just because, the father of the petitioner happens to be the Ex-MLA of
State of M.P. and belongs to the opposition party, he has been targeted
in the matter under the garb of compliant made for encroachment on the
government land. It is further submitted that the procedure has been
prescribed for holding of demarcation under Section 129 of the M.P.
Land Revenue Code, 1959, which inter alia commences from the filing
of a formal application, deposit of requisite fee through treasury challan,
the constitution of the team and issuance of notices to the persons likely
to be affected by the demarcation proceedings, preparation of spot
panchnama and holding of demarcation proceedings by identifying the
boundary marks. Deciding of the objections against the demarcation
report and thereafter, passing of the final order. However, according to
the petitioner, the said exercise has not been done in the matter.
6. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that on the
communication made by the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal
Council, Lahar, the demarcation case was registered by the Tehsildar,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25784
4 WP-34056-2025
without there being any formal application or payment of any requisite
fee. In the instant case, in terms of the Madhya Pradesh Bhu-Rajaswa
Sanhita Simankan Niyam, 2018, the team is required to be constituted
for the purposes of holding of demarcation proceedings by the Tehsildar
but in the instant case, a team was constituted by the Collector. No
proper notice of holding of demarcation proceedings was served upon
the petitioner. The notice dated 15.07.2024 (Annexure-P/5) was for
holding demarcation proceedings on 18.07.2024, whereas the spot
panchnama and demarcation report indicate that the same were prepared
on 20.07.2024 and for the proceedings of 20.07.2024, no notice was
issued to the petitioner thereby violating the provisions under Section
129(2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.
7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in case
the complainant were seeking right of way, then the proceedings under
Section 131 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, ought to have been
conducted and the proceedings under Section 129 of the M.P.Land
Revenue Code, were itself not maintainable.
8. Learned senior counsel further submits that as per the
provisions contained under Section 129 of the M.P. Land Revenue
Code, 1959, the demarcation report is required to be submitted to the
concerned Tehsildar. However, in the instant case, the demarcation
report was submitted to the Collector which substantiates the allegations
of the petitioner of malafides involved.
9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25784
5 WP-34056-2025
submits that an application was moved by him for the correction of map
in respect of land bearing Survey No.2715. The report on the said
application was called upon by the Tehsildar from the revenue Inspector.
The report dated 25.09.2024 submitted by the revenue Inspector found
the discrepancies in the field map of the land bearing Survey No.2715,
yet without first deciding the application for correction of map filed by
the petitioner, the proceedings for demarcation were conducted on
20.07.2024 itself.
10.Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the notice for demarcation dated 15.07.2024 was challenged by him in a
writ petition before this Court which was though dismissed vide order
dated 18.07.2024, yet the authorities were directed to hold demarcation
proceedings in accordance with law, which order of the Court has been
violated.
11.Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the
provisions contained under Section 124 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code
r/w Rules framed thereunder, unless the boundary marks from four sides
of the lands in question are identified, the demarcation proceedings
cannot be conducted. In the instant case, due to construction being
raised on all sides of the land in question, without ascertainment of the
proper boundary marks, the demarcation exercise was conducted behind
the back of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a detailed objection
to the demarcation report but without properly deciding the said
objection, the impugned order dated 12.09.2024 has been passed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25784
6 WP-34056-2025
Tehsildar. Even the Sub-Divisional Officer had failed to consider the
legal grounds as regards the alleged illegality committed in the
demarcation proceedings and thereby rejected the application filed by
the petitioner vide impugned order dated 18.08.2025.
12.Learned senior counsel places reliance on the judgment of this
Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2009
(2) MPLJ 429, Upendra Kumar and Others Vs. Kamruddin and Others
2019 (1) RN 246, and Braj Mohan Sharma Vs. Kaluram and Other,
2025 (1) RN 985. Accordingly, he prays for interference in the matter.
13.On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents/State opposes the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioner and submits that the entire exercise for holding of the
demarcation proceedings of the lands in question have been conducted
strictly in terms of the procedure as laid down under Section 129 of the
M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, and rules framed thereunder. The
petitioner, since has raised a massive construction on the government
land bearing Survey Nos.2711 and 2715 and has obstructed the public
way by installing an iron gate, the complaint was submitted by number
of residents of Tehsil Lahar to the Collector. The said compliant was
forwarded by the Collector, Bhind to the Chief Municipal Officer,
Municipal Council, Lahar. The Chief Municipal Officer looking to the
fact that the complaint was pertaining to encroachment on the
government land and prior to action for removal of encroachment, the
factual position of the alleged encroachment was required to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25784
7 WP-34056-2025
ascertained, therefore, he issued a communication dated 04.07.2024
(Annexure-R/1) to the Tehsildar Lahar, thereby requesting for holding
of the demarcation of the government land bearing Survey Nos.2711
and 2715, so that the complaint of encroachment could be disposed of.
14.Senior counsel appearing for the respondent/State submits that
when functionaries of the States intends to hold demarcation of the
government lands, then there is no requirement either for submission of
a formal application or for payment of any prescribed fee for the
demarcation of the government land, and therefore, the ground raised by
the petitioner in the said regard being baseless and misconceived,
deserves to be rejected.
15.Learned Sr. counsel for the State further submits that on the
communication dated 04.07.2024 issued by the respondent No.4, the
respondent No.3 registered a revenue case bearing Case No.66/A-
12/2014-25, and passed an order dated 05.07.2024 (Annexure-R/3)
constituting a team of five revenue officers headed by the Revenue
Inspector, Circuit Lahar, to hold the demarcation proceedings. Looking
to the fact that father of the petitioner being Ex-Cabinet Minister of the
State and Ex-MLA from the said constituency is highly influential
personality and therefore, there was possibility of arising of situation of
law and order, accordingly, the tehsilar pass another order dated
16.07.2024, whereby in order to ensure maintain law and order during
the process of demarcation, the Naib Tehsildar, Lahar, was appointed as
nodal officer to supervise the demarcation proceedings and also to assist
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25784
8 WP-34056-2025
the team constituted by the Collector vide order dated 17.07.2024 in the
process of demarcation and submission of demarcation report.
16.Senior counsel for the State submits that proper notice for
demarcation to be conducted on 18.07.2024 was issued to the persons
likely to be affected including the petitioner on 15.07.2024. The
petitioner herein challenged the said notice dated 15.07.2024 before this
Court by filing a writ petition and thereafter, writ appeal and also upto
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, no substantive relief was granted
to the petitioner in his challenge to the demarcation notice. The
proceedings for demarcation commenced on 18.08.2025, however, the
proceedings could not be concluded and therefore, the same were
continued on 20.07.2024. Proper boundary marks were identified. An
old well existing on Survey No.2729 was identified as the permanent
mark for the purpose of demarcation and on the basis whereof, the
proceedings were conducted on 20.07.2025.
17.Learned senior counsel for the respondent/State, by placing
reliance on the photographs of the demarcation proceedings submitted
that the petitioner was present during the demarcation proceedings held
on 18.07.2024 and 20.07.2024. The demarcation exercise was conducted
in the permanent structure raised by the petitioner on the government
land and all the family members of petitioner including the petitioner
were present during the proceedings, and therefore, it cannot be said that
without there being any notice to the petitioner, the demarcation
proceedings were concluded on 20.07.2024. The objection as regards
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25784
9 WP-34056-2025
the faulty field map of Survey No.2715 was raised by the petitioner after
issuance of demarcation notice. The map in the position as its existed
since the year 1942-43, and therefore, the application for correction of
the map was found to be a delaying tactics and an attempt to stall the
ongoing demarcation process. The demarcation report specifically
revealed that the petitioner has encroached upon the area admeasuring
0.042 hectares forming part of Survey Nos.2711 and area admeasuring
0.073 hectares forming part of Survey No.2715. The report was
submitted by the team to the Tehsildar, so also to the Collector. The
objections raised by the petitioner were duly considered by the
Tehsildar, as is evident from the proceedings drawn by tehsildar and
placed on record with the return filed by the State. However, finding the
objections to be frivolous, the same were rejected and therefore, the
final order was passed.
19.Since the entire exercise was conducted in accordance with
law, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 129(5) of
the M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959, has been rejected by the Sub-
Divisional Officer by a detailed order dated 18.08.2025. Senior counsel
for the State submits that the scope of judicial review in the matters
arising out of revenue proceedings is extremely limited. This Court in
exercise of writ jurisdiction, is required to examine the decision making
process and not the decision. The petitioner has encroached upon the
government land by raising massive construction under the patronage of
his father being influential person. The grounds of malafides are vague
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25784
10 WP-34056-2025
and baseless and therefore, deserves rejection. No grounds to interfere in
the proceedings done by the revenue authorities have been made out and
therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
20.Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 adopts the
same arguments as advanced by the senior counsel for the State.
21.No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the
parties.
22.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
23.The ground raised by the petitioner that without there being
any formal application seeking demarcation of the lands in question and
without payment prescribed fee, the demarcation proceedings could not
have been initiated, deserves to be stated to be rejected. This Court is in
complete agreement with the stand taken by the learned senior counsel
appearing for the State that when the functionaries of the State
Government are intending to do the demarcation of the government
land, then there may not be any requirement for payment of any
prescribed fee or submission of any formal application.
24.The further contention advanced by learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners that since the dispute pertains to the right
of way, the proceedings ought to have been initiated under Section 131
of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, and the demarcation proceedings
under Section 129 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, were not
maintainable, is wholly misconceived and baseless. In the instant case,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25784
11 WP-34056-2025
the admitted issue is the removal of encroachment from the government
land. To ascertain the factum of encroachment, demarcation of the land
is essential. That apart, Section 131 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code,
deals with the right of customary way of an agriculturist to approach to
his fields, which is not the case here.
25.The further contention of learned senior counsel for the
petitioner that the proceedings for demarcation are vitiated with
malafides and are under political influence does not deserve any
consideration for the reason that neither any specific allegations of
malafides against any persons have been pleaded or substantiated nor
any person against whom the malafides have been alleged are impleaded
as party respondents in their personal capacity. In the absence whereof,
the bald and vague allegations of malafides are not liable to be
considered.
26.The objection raised by learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner as regards constitution of a team for demarcation by the
Collector and also constitution of the team for holding demarcation by
the Tehsilar, being not in confirmity with the Madhya Pradesh Bhu-
Rajaswa Sanhita Simankan Niyam, 2018, cannot be said to be justified.
Rule 7 of the Rules of 2019, reads as under:
"7. (1) The Collector, under sub-section (3) of
section 129, under the control of Commissioner
Land Records, may authorize one or more agency
for the district to render assistance in carrying out
demarcation and construction of boundary marks.
(2) The Tahsilar may, in accordance with the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25784
12 WP-34056-2025
directions issued by the Collector from time to time
engage any one of the agencies authorised under
sub-rule (1) to assist Revenue Inspector or Nagar
Sarvekshak in carrying out demarcation and
construction of boundary marks under sub-section
(3) of Section 129.
(3) The Sub-Divisional Officer may, in
accordance with the directions issued by the
Collector, from time to time, engage any of the
agency authorised under sub-rule (1) to carry out
demarcation and construction of boundary marks
under sub-section (6) of section 129."
27.The perusal of the aforesaid rule indicates that the power to
constitute a team for demarcation vested with the Collector, so also with
the Tehsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer in accordance with
directions issued by the Collector. Even otherwise, just because a
demarcation team comprising of the government official has been
constituted for the purposes of holding the demarcation proceedings, the
same does not constitute any ground for interference as the petitioner
has failed to explain as to how his rights have been prejudiced by
constitution of such team.
28.Insofar as the contention of learned senior counsel as regards
non-issuance of notice for the demarcation proceedings held on
20.07.2024 is concerned, it is a matter of record that notice dated
15.07.2024 issued by the concerned revenue authority to the petitioner
fixing the date of demarcation of the lands in question as 18.07.2024 has
been challenged by the petitioner before the Co-ordinate Bench of this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25784
13 WP-34056-2025
Court, thereafter before the Division Bench, and subsequently before the
Hon'ble Apex Court as well. It is thus, abundantly clear that the
petitioner had full knowledge of the demarcation proceedings which
were proposed to be conducted. The photographs placed on record along
with the return filed by the State Government clearly indicate that the
demarcation proceedings were carried out on 18.07.2024 and thereafter
on 20.07.2024, in the premises where the petitioner has raised huge
construction. There are specific pleadings in the return filed by the State
to the effect that the demarcation proceedings were conducted in the
presence of large public gathering and the police officials and the
petitioner and his family members and videography of the proceedings is
also done. Therefore, it cannot be construed that the petitioner herein
had no notice of the demarcation proceedings, which commenced on
18.07.2024 and concluded on 20.07.2024.
29.The objection to the demarcation report filed by the petitioner
before the tehsilar on 25.09.2024 does not indicate that petitioner had
submitted any objection that he was not aware of the demarcation
proceedings held on 20.07.2024. On the contrary, a detailed objection
running into 5-6 pages (Annexure-P/13) were filed by the petitioner
before the tehsildar on merits of the proceedings. The object of issuance
of notice is to make the person concerned aware of the action proposed
to be taken. In the instant case, the petitioner was well aware of the
demarcation proceedings in question, and therefore, the ground as
regards non-issuance of notice for the proceedings held on 20.07.2024
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25784
14 WP-34056-2025
does not warrant any further consideration.
30.The perusal of the demarcation report and the panchnama
(Annexure-R/7) placed on record with the return filed by the
State/respondent clearly indicate that the demarcation proceedings
commenced on 08.07.2024. The permanent reference marks in terms of
the patwari naksha were verified and the boundary marks were identified
with old well situated at Khasra No.2681. Since the demarcation
proceedings could not be completed on 18.07.2024, the same were
continued on 20.07.2024. The four corner boundaries of Survey
Nos.2711 and 2715 were established and in the presence of Panchas, the
demarcation proceedings were done which reveals that the petitioner and
another encroachers have encroached upon the area admeasuring 0.042
hectares forming part of Survey No.2711 and area admeasuring 0.073
hectares forming part of Survey No.2715. The said demarcation report
was duly forwarded to the Tehsildar, Lahar, for further action and was
also addressed to the Collector.
31.The map appended to the demarcation report indicates the
manner in which the field book was verified for Survey Nos.2711 and
2715.
32.The panchnama appended to the demarcation report also
indicates that during the demarcation proceedings on 20.07.2025, the
Superintendent of Police, Tehsildar Lahar, Station House Officer Lahar,
Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Lahar, were present along
with the demarcation team, constituted by the Tehsildar as well the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25784
15 WP-34056-2025
Collector. The demarcation proceedings thus, drawn were not only in
the presence of the high officials officers of the District administration
but was also done in the presence of expert revenue officer team and the
prescribed procedure as contemplated was in law was duly followed.
The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish
Prasad (supra), as relied upon by the petitioner, may not be applicable in
the given facts and circumstances of the case, as in the instant case, for
holding the demarcation proceedings, the permanent mark, i.e., the old
well was taken into consideration in terms of Section 124 of the M.P.
Land Revenue Code, 1959.
33.The record of the proceedings drawn by the Tehsildar indicates
that an application under Section 32 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code,
1959, filed on behalf of the petitioner objecting to the demarcation
proceedings were considered and decided vide order dated 23.08.2024.
The review application filed by the petitioner was considered and
decided vide order dated 04.09.2024. The oral arguments of the
petitioner were thereafter heard by the Tehsildar on 11.09.2024 and the
written arguments were also permitted to be filed. The order dated
12.09.2024 impugned in the instant writ petition has been passed by the
Tehsildar after taking into consideration the entire material available on
record and after hearing the petitioner. Insofar as the contention of the
petitioner that since there was an application filed by him seeking
correction of field map, the demarcation proceedings could not have
been done without deciding the said application, in the considered
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25784
16 WP-34056-2025
opinion of this Court, may not affect the demarcation proceedings as the
records indicate that the position of the map in respect of Khasra
No.2715 and other khasras existed since the year 1942-1943 and the
application for correction of the map was filed by the petitioner after
issuance of notice of the demarcation proceedings, and therefore, it can
very well be said to be an attempt to delay the proceedings of
demarcation.
34.The perusal of the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by
respondent No.3 in the proceedings challenging the order dated
12.09.2024 indicates that each and every objection raised by the
petitioner against the acceptance of demarcation report by the tehsildar
vide order dated 12.09.2024 has been elaborately considered and
decided by assigning just and proper reasons.
35.The document (Annexure-R/11), i.e., khasra entries filed along
with the return filed by the State indicates that the land bearing Khasra
No.2711 belongs to the State Government and is recorded as Rasta
Najul Khasra No.2715 is also shown to be government land. In order to
ascertain as to whether the petitioner had encroached upon the
government land (Rasta), the exercise of demarcating the government
land was initiated.
36.Recently, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (at Indore), in
the case of Kanchan Motiani Vs. State of M.P. and Others, W.P.
No.8333/2023 vide judgment dated 19.04.2024, has been pleased to
hold that a person has no right to object to demarcation proceedings, as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25784
17 WP-34056-2025
such proceedings are the statutory requirement under the law, and no
one can obstruct a government officer from discharging statutory duties.
37.The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar
and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others in M.P. No.2459/2020
(Gwalior), has been pleased to hold that the scope of interference in the
petition challenging the demarcation proceedings is extremely limited.
Once the proceedings have been conducted in accordance with law, the
objections filed by the concerned have been considered and decided in
accordance with law, then the decision of the authorities on the facts is
not to be interfered. That apart, it is fairly well settled in law that the writ
Court in exercise of judicial review is required to examine the decision
making process and not the decision itself. In the instant case, the
procedure adopted by the revenue authorities does not suffer from any
palpable illegality so as to cause interference in exercise of judicial
review of this Court.
38.In view of the above consideration, no case for interference is
made out.
39.Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, is
hereby dismissed.
40.The petitioner shall be at liberty to file appropriate civil
proceedings for redressal of his grievance. It is also clarified that the
observations made by this Court in the instant order are only for the
purposes of deciding the writ petition in question. In case, any civil suit
is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and decided by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25784
18 WP-34056-2025
the civil court on its own merits.
41.Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Adnan
