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 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...

Article 300A | State Can't Deprive Citizen Of Property Merely Because Old Revenue Records Are Missing: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

Article 300A | State Can't Deprive Citizen Of Property Merely Because Old Revenue Records Are Missing: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers