The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the orders passed by the Tehsildar dated 25.09.2020 (Annexure P/4) and the Additional Commissioner dated 27.07.2023 (Annexure P/1), and for restoration of the order dated 06.10.2021 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent had filed an application under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Court of Tehsildar, asserting that he is the recorded owner and in possession of land bearing Survey No.84, ad-measuring 2.309 hectares, situated at Village Fattukhedi, Tehsil Raghogarh, District Guna. It was alleged that upon demarcation, the petitioner was found to be in possession of the said land, and a prayer was made for eviction of the petitioner and restoration of possession to the respondent. The said application was registered as Case No. 6/A-70/2020-21.

It is further submmitted that the Tehsildar issued notice to the petitioner; however, the proceedings were conducted ex parte and the Tehsildar recorded only the statements of the respondent and, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence or to be heard, allowed the application vide order dated 25.09.2020. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, which was registered as Case No. 57/Appeal/2020-21 and vide order dated 06.10.2021, the Sub-Divisional Officer considered the material on record and observed that the findings regarding alleged illegal possession were based on a revenue inspection report dated 19.06.2019, despite the fact that no demarcation proceedings had actually taken place on that date. It was further noted that the trial court had proceeded ex parte without proper service of notice upon the petitioner. Accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the appeal. Thereafter, the respondent preferred a further appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, which was registered as Case No. 97/2023-24/Appeal. The Additional Commissioner, vide order dated 27.07.2023, allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, and restored the order of the Tehsildar.

It is further submmitted that the impugned orders passed by the Tehsildar and the Additional Commissioner are illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to settled principles of law, and therefore liable to be set aside as they failed to consider material irregularities in the proceedings. The record clearly reveals a serious discrepancy in the service of notice, as the notice is shown to have been issued on 28.07.2020, whereas an endorsement of refusal is recorded on 27.07.2020, which is prior to the date of issuance. Such inconsistency renders the service of notice doubtful and vitiates the entire ex parte proceedings.

It is further submitted that both the Tehsildar and the Additional Commissioner failed to consider that the alleged inspection report dated 19.06.2019 could not have formed the basis of the findings, as no demarcation proceedings were actually conducted on that date. Reliance on such a non-existent or unsubstantiated report renders the findings perverse and unsustainable in law.

It is also submitted that no statements or evidence of the petitioner were recorded at any stage before passing the impugned order. The petitioner was denied a fair opportunity of hearing, in violation of the principles of natural justice. The orders have been passed without proper appreciation of evidence and without affording due opportunity to the petitioner to present his case. It is thus submitted that the present petition be allowed and the impugned orders herein be quashed.

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the application under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 was rightly filed as he is the recorded owner of the land in question and upon due demarcation and inquiry by the Revenue Inspector & Patwari, the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of the said land. It is further submitted that the Tehsildar, after following due process and issuing notices, which the petitioner deliberately refused to accept, proceeded ex parte and rightly passed the order dated 25.09.2020 directing eviction of the petitioner. The findings were based on documentary evidence and official reports, and therefore cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. It is further submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer erred in setting aside the well-reasoned order of the Tehsildar by ignoring material evidence on record and the Additional Commissioner, after proper appreciation of facts and law, rightly restored the order of the Tehsildar, which calls for no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is thus submitted that the present petition be dismissed.

After hearing the rival submissions advanced by the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the proceedings conducted before the Tehsildar are vitiated by a fundamental procedural illegality which strikes at the very root of the matter, as the material placed on record clearly demonstrates an irreconcilable inconsistency in the service of notice upon the petitioner. While the notice is shown to have been issued on 28.07.2020, the endorsement of refusal is recorded on 27.07.2020, a date preceding the very issuance of the notice. Such a contradiction is not a mere technical irregularity but a substantive defect which rendered the service of notice highly doubtful and unreliable. In the absence of valid and lawful service, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings or was afforded a fair opportunity to participate in the same.

The consequence of such defective service is that the ex parte proceedings undertaken by the Tehsildar stand vitiated, being in clear violation of the settled principles of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram partem , which mandates that no person shall be condemned unheard. The denial of an effective opportunity to the petitioner to present his case, lead evidence, and rebut the allegations has resulted in manifest prejudice. Despite this glaring defect, the Tehsildar proceeded to pass the order dated 25.09.2020, which, therefore, cannot be sustained in law.

This Court further finds that the appellate authority, namely, the Additional Commissioner, failed to appreciate this material illegality and erroneously affirmed the order of the Tehsildar without addressing the issue of defective service. Such non-consideration of a vital procedural lapse rendered the appellate order equally unsustainable. On the contrary, the Sub-Divisional Officer had rightly taken note of the deficiencies and illegality in the proceedings while passing the order dated 06.10.2021.

In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court holds that the impugned orders passed by the Tehsildar and affirmed by the Additional Commissioner are legally untenable. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 25.09.2020 passed by the Tehsildar and the order dated 27.07.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner are quashed, and the order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is restored. The matter stands concluded in the above terms, with liberty to the competent authority, if so required, to proceed strictly in accordance with law after ensuring proper service of notice and affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.

No order as to costs.