[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Veersingh Gurjar vs Jitendra on 16 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6358
1 WP-13577-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
WRIT PETITION No. 13577 of 2025
VEERSINGH GURJAR AND OTHERS
Versus
JITENDRA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri S.S.Rajput - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Priyanshu Yadav - Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri B.M.Patel - Govt. Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3/State.
Reserved on : 09/02/2026
Delivered on : 16/02/2026
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission and final disposal with the
consent of parties.
The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 18.02.2025
(Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the objections
raised by the petitioners against the demarcation proceedings dated
06.01.2025 have been rejected and the said demarcation proceedings
have been affirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as
under:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6358
2 WP-13577-2025
2.1The respondent No.1 moved an application in terms of Section
129 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Naib Tehsildar,
Circle Udaipur, Tehsil Basoda, District Vidisha seeking demarcation of
land bearing Survey Nos.140/2/1/3 and 143 situated at Village Imaliya.
The said application was considered and based upon the demarcation
report so received, an order dated 07.10.2024 was passed affirming the
demarcation report.
2.2The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order dated
07.10.2024 before the Sub Divisional Officer and the Sub Divisional
Officer, vide order dated 11.12.2024, while allowing the application
filed by the petitioners and in exercise of powers under Section 129(5)
of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, constituted a demarcation team
comprising of four revenue officers for holding a demarcation afresh.
2.3The team so constituted by the Sub Divisional Officer
conducted the demarcation proceedings on 06.01.2025 and submitted its
report, wherein the petitioners were found to have encroached the land
of respondent No.1.
2.4The petitioners herein submitted objections to the demarcation
report dated 06.01.2025, which have been rejected by the Sub Divisional
Officer vide order dated 18.02.2025 impugned in the present writ
petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
earlier demarcation proceedings were conducted by the Tehsildar
without adequate service of notice on the petitioners, and therefore, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6358
3 WP-13577-2025
order dated 07.10.2024 was rightly challenged by them before the Sub
Divisional Officer. Although the Sub Divisional Officer directed fresh
demarcation, even the newly constituted team conducted the
demarcation proceedings without proper notice to the petitioners and
behind their back. The demarcation was carried out using a rover
machine, which, according to the petitioners, does not yield accurate
results. Accordingly, the objections to the report were submitted which
have been arbitrarily rejected.
4. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the map of the
spot reveals that incorrect possession in the same is reflected and in the
absence of proper notice to the petitioners, they were precluded from
raising their objections during the demarcation proceedings conducted
on 06.01.2025. Accordingly, he submits that the order impugned
deserves to be quashed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.1 opposes the writ petition and submits that even the second
demarcation conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer on the appeal
preferred by the petitioners revealed that the petitioners have encroached
upon the land of the respondent No.1, and therefore, frivolous objection
is being raised by the petitioners.
6. No other point has been pressed by learned counsels for the
parties.
7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6358
4 WP-13577-2025
8. It is an undisputed fact that in their representation filed by the
petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Officer challenging the
demarcation order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, the
petitioners themselves requested for a demarcation afresh. The said
request made by the petitioners was acceded to by the Sub-Divisional
Officer and by setting aside the order dated 07.10.2024, a team
comprising of four revenue officials was constituted for holding the
demarcation proceedings afresh.
9. The said team conducted the demarcation on spot on
06.01.2025 and prepared the panchnama. The petitioners herein being
fully aware of the said proceedings, remained present during the
proceedings but refused to sign the same as they were not happy with
the demarcation report prepared. A note in the said regard was duly
made in the panchnama dated 06.01.2025 filed on record at page 25 of
the petition.
10.The procedure as contemplated under the rules was followed
by the demarcation team constituted by the Sub-Divisional Officer
which submitted the report dated 06.01.2025. However, the same was
not in favor of the petitioners and therefore, they are raising objections
to the same which stands rejected vide impugned order dated
18.02.2025.
11.The ground of violation of principles of natural justice or
inadequate service of notice in the proceedings is not available to the
petitioners in view of the note endorsed on the panchnama itself
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6358
5 WP-13577-2025
indicating that the petitioners were present and they refused to sign the
proceedings.
12.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 held 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.
13.In view of the above consideration, no case for interference is
made out. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, is
hereby dismissed.
14.The petitioners shall be at liberty to file appropriate civil
proceedings for redressal of their grievance as regards their
ownership/possession, etc., if still aggrieved. 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 petitioners, the same shall be considered and decided by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6358
6 WP-13577-2025
the civil court on its own merits.
15.Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Adnan
