The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the state government’s decision to designate Patwaris as execution officers under the Centre’s Swamitva Yojana, ruling that a representative plea filed on behalf of only seven districts was not maintainable. The order means the challenge did not receive relief against the government’s August 2026 directive, which applies to Patwaris across all 55 districts of the state.
Justice Vishal Mishra observed that any decision on the petition would affect Patwaris throughout Madhya Pradesh, while the MP Patwari Sangh had approached the court only on behalf of workers from seven districts. The court noted that Patwaris in the remaining 48 districts had agreed to perform the duties assigned under the scheme.
The association had argued that Patwaris were authorised to maintain land records and perform revenue-related duties, but did not have the legal power to register property documents or sign title transfer documents and sale deeds as execution officers. It therefore challenged the state government’s August 2026 order as illegal.
The court distinguished between issuing property cards under the Swamitva Yojana and executing sale or transfer deeds. It observed that the scheme’s provisions relating to survey, verification and maintenance of revenue records did not, by themselves, confer authority on Patwaris to execute conveyance documents on behalf of the state.
The Swamitva Yojana is a Central government scheme focused on surveying and documenting privately held properties in rural areas. The process includes the preparation of property records and the issuing of property cards. In Madhya Pradesh, the state government designated Patwaris as execution officers for sale deeds prepared under the scheme in respect of privately held properties.
Appearing for the state government, Additional Solicitor General Harpreet Singh Ruprah and Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly argued that the duties formed part of the implementation of a Central government scheme. They also submitted that Patwaris in 48 districts had already agreed to undertake the assigned work.
In its order, the High Court said the petition had been filed in a representative capacity but did not include Patwaris from all districts covered by the government order. “There are 55 districts in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The present petition, only on behalf of the seven districts of the state, is not maintainable as the same is filed in the representative capacity,” the court said.
The court added that an order interfering with the state government’s directive would have a binding effect on all Patwaris in Madhya Pradesh, even though no individual Patwari had approached it. It held that the association would have needed to challenge the government’s decision on behalf of Patwaris across the state for the representative petition to be maintainable.
The dismissal addresses the maintainability of the petition rather than granting a final determination on the broader question of whether Patwaris can execute conveyance documents under the scheme. The state government’s directive therefore remains the operative framework reported in the case, with the assigned duties continuing to apply across the 55 districts.
