The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that boundary disputes between adjoining survey numbers must be resolved through statutory demarcation by revenue authorities, not through litigation over appellate orders. The judgment clarifies that courts should not adjudicate title or possession but must ensure procedural compliance in land record management.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smt. Kavita, claims lawful ownership and possession of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 300/min-3, measuring 0.732 hectare, located in Village Kheriyamodi, Patwari Halka No. 49 (Ganeshpura), Tehsil Morar, District Gwalior. The land was originally owned by Ram Charan, S/o Sundara, who sold it to Harvilas Jatav, S/o Ram Singh Jatav, via a registered sale deed in 2001. The petitioner purchased the land from Harvilas Jatav through a registered sale deed dated 01.11.2010. Following this, she applied for mutation of her name in the revenue records. On 28.02.2011, the Additional Tehsildar issued an order directing mutation of her name, which was subsequently implemented in the khasra records.
Key Facts
- The petitioner filed an application for demarcation of her land before the Tehsildar on 08.07.2021
- Clause 8.6 of the State Government’s circular mandates that demarcation applications be decided within 30 days of submission
- No action was taken on the application despite repeated requests
- The respondents filed a return on 24.09.2021 rejecting the application on grounds of non-payment of demarcation fee and absence of batankan map
- The petitioner challenged this rejection and also sought to set aside an order dated 15.02.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division
- The respondents claim continuous joint cultivation and possession of Survey No. 300/2 for 45 years
- Partition proceedings were initiated in 2014 concerning Survey Nos. 282, 284, 293/4 and 300/2, resulting in an order dated 31.07.2014
- An appeal against the 2014 order was dismissed by the SDO on 11.06.2021
- The petitioner filed Appeal No. 339/2021-22 before the Additional Commissioner, mistakenly believing her land (Survey No. 300/3) was included in the partition
- The Commissioner dismissed the appeal on 15.02.2022, holding the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings and had no locus standi
- The respondents allege the petitioner and Respondent No. 4 have encroached upon a common road adjacent to Survey Nos. 300/2, 300/3 and 300/4
Procedural History
- 01.11.2010: Petitioner purchases land via registered sale deed
- 28.02.2011: Mutation of petitioner’s name directed by Additional Tehsildar
- 08.07.2021: Petitioner files application for demarcation
- 24.09.2021: Tehsildar rejects demarcation application for non-payment of fee and lack of batankan map
- 11.06.2021: SDO dismisses appeal against 2014 partition order
- 15.02.2022: Additional Commissioner dismisses petitioner’s appeal (No. 339/2021-22) for lack of locus standi
- 2022: Writ Petition No. 8406 of 2022 filed before the High Court at Gwalior
- 04.05.2026: Judgment delivered
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Demarcation of Survey No. 300/min-3
- Setting aside of the order dated 24.09.2021
- Setting aside of the order dated 15.02.2022
- Any other relief deemed just
The Parties' Positions / Positions Before This Court
Petitioner’s Position: The rejection of her demarcation application was arbitrary and procedurally flawed. She had complied with all requirements. The respondents’ allegations of encroachment and partition are baseless. The delay by revenue authorities has caused undue hardship.
Respondents’ Position: The petitioner is not a party to the partition proceedings concerning Survey No. 300/2. Her challenge is an abuse of process aimed at obstructing lawful demarcation. She has encroached upon a common road and is attempting to benefit from the confusion.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a writ petition under Article 226 is an appropriate forum to adjudicate boundary disputes between adjoining survey numbers, or whether such disputes must be resolved by the competent revenue authority through statutory demarcation.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the rejection of the demarcation application on technical grounds - non-payment of fee and absence of batankan map - was unjustified, as the petitioner had fulfilled all procedural obligations. He relied on the State Government’s circular mandating a 30-day decision timeline, which was grossly violated. He contended that the petitioner’s name was duly mutated in revenue records and that the respondents’ claims of encroachment were unsubstantiated. He further argued that the appellate order dated 15.02.2022 was irrelevant to her claim since her land (Survey No. 300/3) was never part of the partition proceedings.
For the Respondent/State
The State’s counsel contended that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the partition order concerning Survey No. 300/2, as she was neither a co-tenure holder nor a party to those proceedings. He submitted that the respondents had been in continuous possession of Survey No. 300/2 for 45 years and that the partition was lawfully conducted with due notice. He alleged that the petitioner’s petition was a strategic attempt to delay lawful demarcation that would expose her encroachment on the common road. He emphasized that the appellate authority had correctly dismissed her appeal on jurisdictional grounds.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the dispute and found that the core issue was not title or possession, but the precise alignment of boundaries between Survey Nos. 300/2, 300/3 and 300/4. It noted that the petitioner’s grievance centered on the possibility that her land had been erroneously included within Survey No. 300/2 during batankan proceedings.
"The controversy essentially pertains to the exact boundary alignment and area of adjoining survey numbers."
The Court held that the order dated 15.02.2022, dismissing the petitioner’s appeal, was legally sound. The petitioner was not a party to the partition proceedings and had no legal standing to challenge them. The appellate authority correctly applied the principle of locus standi.
However, the Court emphasized that the dispute over boundaries could not be resolved by judicial fiat. It observed that demarcation is a statutory function vested exclusively in the revenue authorities under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code and related rules. The Court noted that the petitioner’s application for demarcation had remained pending for over a year, despite the mandatory 30-day timeline.
"Demarcation would conclusively determine the boundaries of the adjoining survey numbers and would address the grievance raised by the petitioner regarding possible overlap or encroachment."
The Court explicitly declined to express any opinion on the rival claims of title or possession, stating that such determinations must be made solely by the revenue authority based on revenue records and spot inspection. It held that the remedy lay not in setting aside the appellate order, but in compelling the competent authority to perform its statutory duty.
The Verdict
The petition was disposed of with directions. The Court declined to interfere with the order dated 15.02.2022 but directed the competent revenue authority to conduct demarcation of Survey Nos. 300/2, 300/3 and 300/4 situated at Village Kheriyamodi, Tehsil Morar, District Gwalior. The demarcation must be carried out strictly in accordance with law, based on revenue records and spot inspection, after issuing notice to all concerned parties and affording them due opportunity of participation. The entire exercise must be completed within thirty days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Demarcation Is a Statutory Duty, Not a Discretionary Act
- Revenue authorities cannot delay or reject demarcation applications on technical grounds without valid justification
- Mandatory timelines under government circulars are enforceable through writ jurisdiction
- Failure to act within stipulated periods constitutes administrative inaction warranting judicial intervention
Boundary Disputes Must Be Resolved by Revenue Authorities, Not Courts
- Courts will not adjudicate title or possession in land boundary disputes
- Writ petitions under Article 226 are maintainable only to compel performance of statutory duties, not to decide substantive claims
- Practitioners must file demarcation applications first and seek judicial remedy only upon unreasonable delay or refusal
Locus Standi in Partition Proceedings Is Strictly Limited
- Only co-tenure holders or parties to partition proceedings may challenge such orders
- Third parties with adjacent land cannot challenge partition orders unless directly affected
- Misrepresentation of survey numbers to gain standing will be dismissed as abuse of process
