Madhya Pradesh High Court
Indrapal Harijan vs Aniruddh Kumar Agnithotri on 6 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50311
1 MP-5290-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 6 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 5290 of 2025
INDRAPAL HARIJAN AND OTHERS
Versus
ANIRUDDH KUMAR AGNITHOTRI
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Kumar Sen - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Nandani Chheepa - Advocate for the respondent/Caveat.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 04.08.2025
(Annexure-P/4), passed by the Commissioner, Link Court (Satna/Sidhi),
Rewa Division, Rewa in RCMS No.124/Appeal/2024-25, whereby the
appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and the order passed
by the sub-ordinate Courts under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land
Revenue Code, 1959 (for brevity, 'MPLRC') has been affirmed.
2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the
respondent had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction in regard to same
property wherein the Court has observed that the respondent (plaintiff of that
suit) could not establish that the petitioners have been interfering in the suit
property owned by the respondent bearing survey no.677/2 having area 0.27
decimal part. On the basis of the report, it has been observed that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50311
2 MP-5290-2025
petitioners have been found in possession of part of survey no.677
admeasuring area 144 sq.ft, survey no.678 admeasuring area 1965 sq.ft and
survey no.684/1 admeasuring area 400 sq.ft, total area 2356 sq.ft. It has also
been observed that the respondent could not establish that the petitioners
(defendant therein) have been interfering with the possession of the
respondent/plaintiff in survey no. 677/2 as there is no demarcation report
produced before civil court. It is submitted that once such finding has been
arrived at by the civil court, the revenue court ought to have not allowed the
application filed under Section 250 of MPLRC for dispossession of the
petitioners from the land bearing survey no.677/2 and as the authorities have
allowed such application, they have committed grave error of law and
jurisdiction and therefore, prayed that the original order dated 12.09.2023
(Annexure-P/2) passed by the Tehsildar, order dated 12.07.2024 (Annexure-
P/3) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and order dated 04.08.2025 passed
in Second Appeal be quashed.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. It is evident from the judgment of the civil suit that the suit was filed for
permanent injunction by the respondent stating that the petitioners herein
have been interfering with the possession of his land bearing survey no.677/2
area 0.27 decimal. The said suit was dismissed on the ground that from the
report submitted before the civil court the petitioners were found in
possession of land admeasuring area 2356 sq.ft of survey nos. 677, 678 and
684/1 in which area 144 sq.ft has been found of survey no.677. It is also
observed by the civil court that in absence of demarcation report in regard to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50311
3 MP-5290-2025
the survey no.677/2, no decree for permanent injunction can be granted.
However, it is apparent from the record and the orders passed by the revenue
authorities that the application was filed after the demarcation has been done
of survey no.677/2 vide order dated 25.08.2010 and it was found that the
petitioners have encroached over the land of the respondents bearing survey
no.677/2 having dimensions 45x50 sq.ft of part of the area 0.110 hectares
and accordingly, ordered for eviction of the petitioners. The findings arrived
at by the sub-ordinate authorities is in consonance with the judgment passed
by the civil court, wherein in absence of any demarcation report, no finding
in regard to possession of survey no.677/2 has been given. However, as per
the demarcation report, the petitioners have been found to be encroachers
over the land of the respondent. The same order was assailed in the appellate
jurisdiction of the revenue authorities which has been affirmed by the two
courts below. There are concurrent findings of the facts. It is trite law that
this Court, under the supervisory jurisdiction enshrined under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, cannot substitute the findings arrived at by the sub-
ordinate revenue courts and which are based on record.
5. From the aforesaid analysis and records, no interference is called for by
this Court in the order impugned. Accordingly, the petition filed by the
petitioner sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
Priya.P
