ORDER 1. This miscellaneous petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 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 dated 05.05.2022 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 dated 02.05.2022. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his father Moolchand Chouhan has been recorded bhoomiswami of the adjacent land Khasra No. 864/1 & 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 17.05.2017 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 dated 05.05.2022 as well as the order passed by the SDO dated 19.11.2022. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1-2 also supports the impugned orders. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. From bare perusal of the notice of demarcation dated 18.04.2021, it is clear that it has been issued in the name of deceased person i.e. Moolchand, who is father of petitioner Arvind Chouhan and in the panchnama (Annexure P/4), it is clearly mentioned that Arvind Chouhan is in possession and he did not appear despite notice, but the record shows that no notice has been issued in the name of Arvind Chouhan. 6. 6. At the time of confirmation of the demarcation report/proceedings, the Tahsildar has also not followed the provision contained in Section 129(4) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short 'the MPLRC') which directs the Tahsildar to give opportunity of hearing to the parties interested including the neighbouring land holders before confirming the demarcation report. As in the panchnama itself, possession of Arvind Chouhan was found, therefore, it was duty of the Tahsildar to afford opportunity of hearing, by issuing notice or otherwise, to Arvind Chouhan son of Moolchand, before confirming the demarcation report vide final order dated 05.05.2022, which does not reflect that any opportunity of hearing, provided under Section 129(4) of the MPLRC, had been given to any of the parties to demarcation, but it appears that learned Tahsildar has not even perused the panchnama (Annexure P/4), which shows that part of the land in question was encroached by Arvind Chouhan. 7. Upon challenge being made to the final order dtd. 05.05.2022 passed by the Tahsildar, learned SDO has also confirmed the same vide order dated 19.11.2022 without taking into consideration entire demarcation proceedings as well as the provision contained in Section 129(4) of the MPLRC. 8. In view of the aforesaid and in my considered opinion, the impugned order dated 19.11.2022 passed by SDO and order dtd. 05.05.2022 passed by Tahsildar including all the demarcation proceedings conducted by the Revenue Officers of Tahsil Shyampur, deserve to be set aside with the further direction that Tahsildar shall conduct fresh demarcation proceedings after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the concerned. 9. It is also pertinent to mention here that only the petitioner has challenged the demarcation proceedings, therefore, he is directed firstly to get mutated names of all the successors of deceased Moolchand in the revenue record and this exercise shall be done by the petitioner by moving appropriate application under Section 109, 110 of the MPLRC within a period of ten days from today, thereafter, the Tahsildar shall pass appropriate orders on the mutation application within a further period of 30 days from the date of filing of such mutation application. And only thereafter, the Tahsildar shall conduct fresh demarcation proceedings in accordance with law within a further period of one month. And only thereafter, the Tahsildar shall conduct fresh demarcation proceedings in accordance with law within a further period of one month. If within 10 days, the petitioner does not move an application for mutation, the impugned orders shall remain intact and this petition shall be treated to have been dismissed. 10. With the aforesaid observation, this miscellaneous petition is disposed off. 11. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand disposed off.