ARVIND CHOUHAN Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous petition has been preferred challenging the order dtd. 19/11/2022 passed by SDO, Sehore in Revenue Case No.43/B-121/2022-23 (Arvind Chouhan Vs. Sufiya Faiyyaz) whereby learned SDO has maintained the order dtd. 5/5/2022 passed by Tahsildar, Tahsil Shyampur passed in Case No. 56/A-12/21-22 whereby learned Tahsildar confirmed the demarcation proceedings carried out by the Revenue Inspector vide final report dtd. 2/5/2022.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his father Moolchand Chouhan has been recorded bhoomiswami of the adjacent land Khasra No. 864/1 and 865/2 and before conducting the demarcation proceeding, notice was allegedly issued to his deceased father Moolchand and vide panchnama (Annexure P/4), the Revenue Inspector found the petitioner Arvind Chouhan to be in possession of part of the disputed land but apparently no notice was issued to Arvind Chouhan and in the panchnama, it has wrongly been mentioned that notice was issued to Arvind Chouhan. He further submits that the demarcation proceedings have been conducted and finalized behind the back of the petitioner. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent 3 submits that till today, the land owned and possessed by Lt. Moolchand is standing in the name of Moolchand, who is said to have died on 17/5/2017 and the petitioner Arvind Chouhan has not initiated any proceeding for mutation of his name including other legal heirs of Moolchand, therefore, there was no option available with the R.I./Tahsildar but to issue notice only to Moolchand. Accordingly, he submits that there is no illegality in the demarcation proceedings and final order dtd. 5/5/2022 as well as the order passed by the SDO dtd. 19/11/2022. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1-2 also supports the impugned orders.