Ratiram Jatav vs Secretary on 7 April, 2026

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11314




                                                              1                              WP-11965-2026
                            IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT GWALIOR
                                                      BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                                   ON THE 7 th OF APRIL, 2026
                                               WRIT PETITION No. 11965 of 2026
                                                       RATIRAM JATAV
                                                           Versus
                                                   SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                         Appearance:
                                 Shri Chandra Sen Roman - Advocate for the petitioner.

                                 Shri Dharmendra Nayak - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

                                                                  ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 14.07.2025 passed in Appeal No. 18/2023-24 by the Additional Collector, District Shivpuri, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kolaras, District Shivpuri, has been dismissed.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that, the petitioner is a resident of

Village Majhari, Tehsil Badarwas, District Shivpuri. The land in question is situated in the same village, which had originally been allotted on lease to the petitioner's father. Prior to the settlement proceedings of the year 1981- 82, during consolidation (chakbandi), the land was recorded under Survey No. 335, and the lease granted to the petitioner's father corresponded to Survey Nos. 570, 606, and 607, having areas of 0.30, 1.09, and 0.03 hectares

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11314

2 WP-11965-2026 respectively, totaling 2.21 hectares. However, Respondent No. 4, by adopting illegal means, got his name recorded in the current revenue records in respect of Survey No. 606, admeasuring 1.08 hectares. Upon gaining knowledge that the respondent's name had been entered against Survey No. 606, the petitioner duly instituted proceedings before the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, registered as Case No. A-5/2020-21. In the said proceedings, the Sub-Divisional Officer directed the Patwari to conduct a spot inspection and submit a report, whereupon the Revenue Inspector submitted his inquiry report; however, despite the site inspection and report, the petitioner's application was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer, by order dated 17.08.2021. Aggrieved by the said order dated 17.08.2021 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the

Additional Collector, District Shivpuri, registered as Case No. 0028/Appeal/2021-22, wherein the Additional Collector set aside the order dated 17.08.2021 and remanded the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Officer with directions to decide the case afresh on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to both parties and considering the inquiry report. In compliance with the order of the Additional Collector, the Sub-Divisional Officer restored the proceedings but again, by order dated 14.12.2023, rejected the petitioner's application. Against this order dated 14.12.2023, the petitioner once again preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, District Shivpuri; however, the said appeal was dismissed by the Additional Collector vide impugned order dated 14.07.2025. Assailing the said order, the present petition has been preferred.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11314

3 WP-11965-2026

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Collector is wholly erroneous, contrary to the material available on record, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. The appellate authority has failed to appreciate the factual matrix in its correct perspective and has proceeded on assumptions which are demonstrably incorrect.

4. It is further submitted that the Revenue Inspector, upon due inquiry, has categorically recorded that the land originally forming part of Survey No. 335 in the earlier Bandobast record was subsequently renumbered and converted into Survey Nos. 607, 576, and 606. This material finding, which goes to the root of the controversy, has been completely overlooked by the subordinate authority. Instead, the authority has relied upon incorrect and inconsistent facts, thereby vitiating the entire decision-making process. The Revenue Inspector has also clarified that from Survey No. 325, admeasuring 0.152 hectares, new survey numbers being 578, 606, and 607 were carved out, having areas 0.88, 0.03, and 1.80 hectares respectively, totaling 2.21 hectares. However, a manifest clerical error occurred in the map, wherein Survey No. 605 was shown in place of Survey No. 606 and vice versa. Despite this apparent and admitted discrepancy, the courts below failed to correct the error and instead proceeded to base its findings on such incorrect entries, rendering the impugned order legally unsustainable.

5. It is also submitted that the respondent has misled the courts below by asserting that the land in question was allotted to him on the basis of

consent. The petitioner has consistently denied having given any such

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11314

4 WP-11965-2026 consent to Respondent No. 4. This crucial fact was specifically brought to the notice of the courts below, however, the same was disregarded without any proper consideration, leading to a perverse finding based on a false premise. Moreover, the courts below itself have acknowledged in its order that there existed a clerical mistake in the revenue records at the time of family partition. Having recognized such an error, the court ought to have rectified the record or remanded the matter for proper verification. Instead, it proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of the very erroneous entries, thereby committing a grave illegality. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned order suffers from non- application of mind and failure to consider material evidence on record. The order is therefore arbitrary, illegal, and liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner had preferred an application before the court below under Sections 89 and 105 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, seeking correction in respect of the disputed land bearing old Survey No. 335 and new Survey Nos. 578, 606, and 607, admeasuring 2.132 hectares. The petitioner had prayed that the said corrections be carried out in accordance with the position existing prior to the settlement (bandobast). It is further contended that Section 115 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 specifically provides a remedy for correction of erroneous entries in the khasra and other land records by the competent superior authorities. In the present case, the petitioner, having invoked incorrect provisions of law, filed a misconceived

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11314

5 WP-11965-2026 application before the court below. Therefore, it is submitted that no illegality or infirmity can be attributed to the order passed by the court below in dismissing the petitioner's appeal, as the same is in accordance with law.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the controversy involved in the present case essentially pertains to correction of alleged wrong entries in the khasra and other revenue records arising out of settlement and consolidation proceedings. The grievance of the petitioner is primarily with regard to incorrect recording of survey numbers and consequential entries in the revenue record.

8. Section 115 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 provides a specific statutory mechanism for correction of such errors. The said provision reads as under:

"115. Correction of wrong entry in khasra and any other land records by superior officers.-- If any Tahsildar finds that a wrong or incorrect entry has been made in the land records prepared under Section 114 by an officer subordinate to him, he shall direct necessary changes to be made therein in red ink after making such enquiry from the person concerned as he may deem fit after due written notice."

9. In view of the aforesaid statutory provision, it is evident that an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner for redressal of his grievance regarding correction of revenue entries. The petitioner, instead of invoking the appropriate provision, has pursued proceedings under other provisions which may not be strictly applicable for the relief sought.

10. Considering the nature of dispute and the availability of a specific remedy under the statute, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11314

6 WP-11965-2026 impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

11. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy by filing a fresh application under Section 115 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the competent authority.

12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all issues are left open to be decided by the competent authority.

13. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is disposed of.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE

ojha