Encroachments and Eviction (Sections 248–254)

Chapter XVIII of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 arms the revenue machinery with one of its sharpest powers: the summary removal of encroachers from unoccupied, abadi, service and other Government land. Sections 248 to 254 stitch together a graded regime — ejectment and forfeiture by the Tahsildar, escalating fines, civil imprisonment ordered by the Sub-Divisional Officer, a mirror remedy to reinstate a wrongfully dispossessed bhumiswami, protection of allottees, vesting of tanks and the upkeep of works of public utility. The provisions are deliberately summary, yet they operate against the backdrop of Article 300A and a settled line of authority insisting that even a trespasser cannot be removed save by the procedure the statute prescribes.

The scheme of Sections 248–254

Sections 248 to 254 sit in Chapter XVIII of the Code and form a compact code-within-a-code for encroachment and dispossession. Section 248 is the workhorse, penalising unauthorised possession of Government and special-purpose land and empowering summary ejectment by the Tahsildar. Section 249 lets the State Government make rules regulating fishing in Government tanks, hunting and the removal of materials from State land. Sections 250, 250-A and 250-B form the protective wing — reinstatement of an improperly dispossessed bhumiswami, civil imprisonment for refusing to restore possession, and a penal remedy ensuring an allottee actually gets the land granted to him. Section 251 vests village tanks in the State, Section 252 imposes a duty to maintain works of public utility, Section 253 prescribes a residual penalty for contravention of the chapter, and Section 254 lets the patel discharge Gram Sabha functions until a Gram Sabha is constituted under Section 232. The chapter presupposes the framework built earlier in the Code: the hierarchy and powers of revenue officers determine which authority acts, and the categories of land turn on the statutory definitions of land-holder and bhumiswami.

Section 248: penalty for unauthorisedly taking possession

Section 248(1) is the principal anti-encroachment provision. Any person who unauthorisedly takes or remains in possession of any unoccupied land, abadi, service land or land set apart for a special purpose under Section 237 — or, after amendment, upon any land that is the property of Government or of any authority, body corporate or institution constituted under a State enactment — may be summarily ejected by order of the Tahsildar. Any standing crop, building or other work, if not removed within the time the Tahsildar fixes, is liable to forfeiture and is disposed of as the Tahsildar directs; the cost of removal and of restoring the land to its original condition is recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. The width of the words "takes or remains in possession" means the section reaches both the fresh trespasser and the lawful entrant whose authority has lapsed.

Section 248: rent, fines and the daily penalty

Beyond ejectment, Section 248(1) layers monetary liability. At the Tahsildar's discretion the encroacher pays rent for the period of unauthorised occupation at twice the rate admissible for such land in the locality, plus a fine that may extend to twenty per centum of the market value of the encroached land, plus a further fine that may extend to five hundred rupees in a non-urban area and two thousand rupees in an urban area for every day the unauthorised occupation continues after the date of first ejectment. The Tahsildar may apply the whole or part of the fine to compensate persons who, in his opinion, have suffered loss or injury from the encroachment. A proviso shields old buildings and works erected before the cut-off dates fixed region-wise (for example, before 1 September 1917 in much of the Mahakoshal region and before 15 August 1950 in the Madhya Bharat region), so that long-standing structures are not summarily forfeited. Because these consequences are penal and may strip a person of structures and crops, the discretion must be exercised on objective material; the categorisation of the land itself flows from the record of rights, which is presumed true unless rebutted.

Section 248: civil imprisonment and the Gram Panchayat route

Section 248(2-A) escalates enforcement against the obstinate occupier. If a person continues in unauthorised occupation for more than seven days after the order of ejectment under sub-section (1), the Sub-Divisional Officer — not the Tahsildar — shall cause him to be apprehended and confined in a civil prison for fifteen days on a first ejectment and six months on a second or subsequent ejectment. The power is hedged by mandatory safeguards: no action is taken unless a notice is issued calling on the person to appear before the SDO and show cause why he should not be committed; no action lies on Government and Nazul land for which the Government has issued settlement orders; the SDO may release the person early if satisfied the possession has been vacated; and crucially, no woman shall be arrested or detained under the sub-section. Section 248(1-A) supplies a participatory trigger — on a resolution duly passed by the Gram Panchayat, the Tahsildar must start and complete proceedings within thirty days of receiving information of the resolution and report the action taken back to the Panchayat.

Natural justice and Article 300A in eviction

Although Section 248 is styled "summary", summary is not synonymous with arbitrary. The civil-prison power in sub-section (2-A) expressly requires a show-cause notice and hearing, and the courts read the ejectment power itself as subject to the audi alteram partem rule wherever a person claims a colour of title or possession. The constitutional anchor is Article 300A: in Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 569, the Supreme Court held that a welfare State cannot dispossess a citizen of property except by authority of law and cannot perfect title through adverse possession or forcible taking; even a long-standing occupant is entitled to due process and, where appropriate, compensation. The practical consequence for Section 248 is that a Tahsildar must satisfy himself the land falls within the section's categories and that the occupier is genuinely unauthorised; a bona fide dispute about whether the occupier holds as a bhumiswami ordinarily cannot be brushed aside in summary proceedings designed for clear encroachments.

Section 249: regulating fishing, hunting and removal of materials

Section 249 is a rule-making provision rather than a penal one. It empowers the State Government to make rules regulating fishing in Government tanks, the catching, hunting or shooting of animals in villages, and the removal of any materials from lands belonging to the State Government. Such rules may provide for the issue of permits, the conditions attaching to them, the imposition of fees and incidental matters. The section dovetails with Section 251 (vesting of tanks) and with the nistar framework: once a tank vests in the State, access for fishing or removal of produce is mediated through these rules, and a breach is met not by Section 249 itself but by the residual penalty in Section 253 read with the entries in the Nistar Patrak and Wajib-ul-arz.

Section 250: reinstatement of a bhumiswami improperly dispossessed

Section 250 is the mirror image of Section 248: where Section 248 protects Government land from the private encroacher, Section 250 protects the private bhumiswami from wrongful dispossession. For this section and Section 250-A, "bhumiswami" is enlarged to include an occupancy tenant and a Government lessee. If a bhumiswami is dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law, or if a person unauthorisedly continues in possession after his entitlement has ceased, the bhumiswami or his successor-in-interest may apply to the Tahsildar for restoration of possession. The limitation is two years from dispossession (or from the date possession became unauthorised) for an ordinary bhumiswami, with a more generous window for a bhumiswami of an aboriginal tribe declared under Section 165(6). The Tahsildar may also act suo motu on coming to know of a dispossession otherwise than in due course of law, and may pass an interim order for handing over possession where the dispossession occurred within six months before the application or the start of suo motu proceedings.

Section 250, jurisdiction and the title suit

The relationship between the Section 250 remedy and a civil suit on title was settled in Nathu v. Dilbande Hussain, AIR 1967 MP 14. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that what Section 257(x) of the Code excludes from the civil court is only a suit of the Section 9, Specific Relief Act type — a possessory action to restore a dispossessed bhumiswami — because that ground is occupied by Section 250. A bhumiswami is therefore not bound to use Section 250; he retains the right to file a regular civil suit founded on title to establish ownership and recover possession, and an order of the revenue court under Section 250 does not operate as res judicata in that title suit. The dividing line is thus between summary possession (revenue court, Section 250) and adjudication of title (civil court), and the exclusive-jurisdiction bar of Section 257 must be read in that light. The accuracy of the entries on which any such claim rests is governed by the discipline of mutation of land records.

Sections 250-A and 250-B: enforcing restoration and protecting allottees

Section 250-A gives Section 250 its teeth. If a person continues in unauthorised possession for more than seven days after an order of restoration under Section 250, the Sub-Divisional Officer shall apprehend and confine him in a civil prison for fifteen days on a first order and three months on a second or subsequent order, subject to the same safeguards as Section 248(2-A) — a show-cause notice, early release on vacation of possession and an absolute bar on arresting or detaining a woman. Section 250-B addresses a distinct mischief: an allottee who has been granted land in bhumiswami rights or as a Government lessee under a patta but cannot take actual possession may apply to the Tahsildar, who directs the person in possession to vacate or remove any obstruction and may use such force, including police force, as is necessary to put the allottee in possession. Failure to comply with the Tahsildar's direction is punishable with imprisonment up to three years and fine, with a further daily fine of up to one hundred rupees for a continuing default, and the offence is expressly cognizable and non-bailable.

Section 251: vesting of tanks in the State Government

Section 251 vests in the State, with effect from 6 April 1959, all tanks situated on unoccupied land over which members of the village community were exercising rights of irrigation or nistar immediately before the abolition of intermediary rights, where such tanks had not already vested. The vesting does not affect a subsisting lessee's rights, which continue on the terms of the lease, and it operates only after the Collector, on enquiry, is satisfied the tank meets the statutory conditions and after notice and hearing to interested parties. A person claiming any interest other than irrigation or nistar may, within four years of vesting, apply to the Collector for compensation, and Section 239 governs trees standing on the embankments of a vested tank. The provision converts community water bodies into State assets while preserving customary nistar use — a continuation of the settlement philosophy traced in revenue survey and settlement.

Sections 252–254: public-utility works, residual penalty and the patel

Section 252 makes it the duty of the Gram Sabha to maintain and repair works of public utility in the village. The Gram Sabha may, by written order, call upon adult males in the village (excepting the old, infirm or disabled) to perform specified labour on notified public-utility works, but only where the works are genuinely of public utility and likely to benefit those called upon. A person may have the labour done by another or pay for its performance at a rate fixed by the Tahsildar, and one who neglects or refuses is liable, on the Tahsildar's order, to pay the value of the labour, recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. Section 253 supplies the chapter's residual penal clause: anyone who contravenes the chapter or the rules, or who breaches a custom entered in the Wajib-ul-arz or an entry in the Nistar Patrak, is liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty thousand rupees imposed by the Sub-Divisional Officer after a hearing, with power to confiscate timber or other produce wrongfully removed from State land and to apply the penalty to repair public loss; office-bearers of a defaulting Gram Sabha are personally liable absent proof of diligence. Section 254 is transitional — until a Gram Sabha is constituted under Section 232, the patel performs every function the chapter assigns to the Gram Sabha. For the historical evolution of these village institutions, see the introduction and object of the Code and the broader MP Land Revenue Code hub.