Merely Because State Or Municipal Council Are Parties To Suit, Cannot Be Presumed That Revenue Authorities Would Act Mala Fidely: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in a case addressed the issue of denying a request for land demarcation because the State and Municipal Council were parties to the dispute, questioning the Revenue authorities.The Court stated that the trial court had drawn an adverse inference against the Revenue authorities without any legitimate basis. The court found that there is no...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in a case addressed the issue of denying a request for land demarcation because the State and Municipal Council were parties to the dispute, questioning the Revenue authorities.
The Court stated that the trial court had drawn an adverse inference against the Revenue authorities without any legitimate basis. The court found that there is no justification for presuming that the Revenue officials would act with mala fides simply because the State and Municipal Council were involved in the suit.
“Merely because the State or Municipal Council is the party to the suit, it cannot be presumed that the Revenue authorities would act mala fidely.”
The court observed that “the Trial Court was not right in drawing an adverse inference against the Revenue authorities or possibility of a defense which the petitioners may take in case the demarcation report goes against them.”
The petitioner filed a civil suit through which she claimed ownership of land in Panna district, saying that the State and Municipal Council had built a canal on their property without consent. The trial court refused the petitioner's request for a land demarcation, noting the fact that the petitioners had already received a demarcation report privately. The trial court raised concerns that because the dispute involves the State and Municipal Council, petitioners may not accept a subsequent official delineation by Revenue authorities, thus prolonging proceedings.
Therefore, the petitioners in the present case filed a writ petition, challenging the trial court's decision. They contended that a court-appointed demarcation was essential to resolve the boundary dispute and to prove their claim that the canal was built on their land. Precedents such as Shreepat vs. Rajendra Prasad and Haryana Waqf Board vs. Shanti Sarup were cited to highlight the importance of demarcation in resolving boundary disputes and that too court-supervised.
The High Court set aside the trial court's order. It held that the trial court had committed material illegality by rejecting the application for demarcation under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. Justice Ahluwalia ordered the trial court to proceed with the demarcation request in accordance with the law, stating that the petitioners had a legitimate right to request an official demarcation of the land.
The court concluded that “the petitioners have already filed a private demarcation report, and if they are ready to take a risk of getting the land demarcated by the Revenue authorities, then without any basis for expressing mala fide on the part of the Revenue authorities, the Trial Court should not have rejected the said application.”
Case title: Smt Kalyani Devi And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Case No: MISC. PETITION No. 2838 of 2024