Article 300A | State Can't Deprive Citizen Of Property Merely Because Old Revenue Records Are Missing: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that mere absence or loss of government records cannot itself justify depriving a citizen of property rights that have been consistently reflected in official records for decades. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 229]The bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke held that the burden to prove allegations of illegality, manipulation or wrongful entries lies squarely on...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that mere absence or loss of government records cannot itself justify depriving a citizen of property rights that have been consistently reflected in official records for decades. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 229]
The bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke held that the burden to prove allegations of illegality, manipulation or wrongful entries lies squarely on the State, and such burden must be discharged with cogent, reliable and admissible evidence.
The bench observed;
"Mere absence or loss of Government records cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground to deprive a citizen of property rights which have remained reflected in official records for decades. The burden to establish allegations of illegality, manipulation, or wrongful entries lies upon the State. Such burden is required to be discharged by producing cogent, reliable, and admissible evidence...This Court is also mindful of the constitutional protection guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India".
Per the facts, the petitioner was a duly registered society under Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam. The society submitted its representations to the State Government seeking allotment of land to establish educational institutions, including schools, hostels and hostels for students belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes.
The State Government approved the proposal and allotted the land by order dated August 17, 1976, allotting 5 hectares of land in District Datia. Despite society's efforts to secure the original lease order, its application was returned stating that the concerned record was not available. After the allotment order, the society was recorded in the revenue record by the 1976 order. Since then, the society had continously remained recorded in revenue records as owners in possession of the land.
After several decades, the Patwari of Mauja Datia Gird submitted a report before the Tehsildar. In this said report, the said land was recorded as “Jungle” in the Kishtbandi Khatauni of the year 1943-44. However, in the present revenue records, the survey number was subdivided into various survey numbers standing in the names of different private persons.
Acting on the report, the Tehdsildar initiated proceedings and referred the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Datia, purportedly under Section 113 of the MP Land Revenue Code for correction of alleged clerical errors in the record of rights.
After conducting the proceedings, the matter was forwarded to the State government, which, by order of April 25, 2017, stated that the matter does not fall under Section 57(2) of the MP Land Revenue Code and directed the Collector to proceed in accordance with law. Subsequently, the Tehsiladar, without affording the opportunity of hearing to the society, passed an order on May 8, 2025, directing the eviction of the society and imposed ₹1 crore as a penalty.
Being aggrieved, the society filed a writ petition, which was dismissed. The said dismissal was challenged before the Division bench of the High Court, which was allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the Tehsildar. Tehsildar, thereafter, issued a show-cause notice. However, it was claimed that the notice suffered serious defects as it mentioned incorrect survey numbers. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply, but despite the specific stand of the society, the Tehsildar failed to summon the society or examine the original allotment records.
Thus, the Tehsildar passed the impugned order of January 15, 2018, directing the eviction of the society with the penalty of ₹1 crore. The society, subsequently, filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, but it was dismissed. The society argued that the Sub Divisional Officer dismissed the appeal without affording an opportunity of hearing.
The society again preferred a writ petition, in which the court again remanded the matter to the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner upheld the order of the subordinate revenue authorities. Aggrieved, the society filed the present petition challenging the impugned orders.
The court noted that the entire proceedings initiated by Tehsildar were "fundamentally flawed" and noted that the impugned order of January 15, 2018, was passed without conducting any proper enquiry per the provisions of the MP Revenue Code.
The bench held, "No evidence was recorded, no witnesses were examined, and the petitioners were not afforded a fair and effective opportunity to establish their case. The reliance placed solely upon the report of the Patwari, which remained unproved and untested, without subjecting the same to the scrutiny of evidence or permitting cross- examination by the affected parties, constitutes a serious procedural irregularity. Such reliance on an unverified report, in the absence of any independent enquiry, cannot form the basis for recording findings having the effect of divesting a person of long-standing revenue rights and possession".
The bench further noted that the Tehsildar acted beyond the scope of his jurisdiction and noted that Sections 115 and 116 of the Revenue Code are limited in nature and do not confer jurisdiction upon the Tehsildar to determine disputed questions relating to ownership, title, rights and interest in immovable property.
Additionally, the court noted that the impugned order was passed without "application of mind".The bench noted that the allegations of stolen property and conclusions drawn from unavailable records had no rational nexus with the controversy of the present case.
The court noted that the records pertaining to the relevant period were unavailable and, therefore, in the absence of such records, the presumption that the batankan was illegal was impermissible.
The bench further clarified that, "when the specific case of the State was that the land constituted Government land, the burden lay squarely upon the State to establish that fact through credible evidence. Instead of discharging its own burden, the State effectively shifted the onus onto the petitioner, and the authority proceeded on that erroneous premise".
Further, emphasizing on the principles of natural justice, the bench held that the petitioners were neither granted an adequate opportunity of hearing nor permitted to lead evidence to support their claims. The bench further reiterated:
"Any order having civil consequences and affecting valuable property rights must be preceded by a fair procedure and meaningful opportunity of participation. Such requirement stands conspicuously absent in the present case".
Thus, highlighting that a person cannot be deprived of his property by authority of law and any action resulting in the deprivation of property must satisfy the requirements of fairness, legality and due process. Thus, the bench allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders.
Case Title: Madhavdas Maha Vidhyalaya Krishi Samiti v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-7530-2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 229
For Petitioner: Senior Advocate N.K.Gupta with Advocate Yashasvi Pratap Singh Rathore
For State: Government Advocate Ravindra Dixit