IMPORTANT POINT
The substantial questions of law raised in second appeal have to be considered and adjudicated upon.

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.—

1.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the civil appeal filed by the appellant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the ‘CPC’ ). The appeal was dismissed summarily at the admission stage holding that no substantial question of law is involved.

2.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that several questions of law are involved.

3.Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that there is no substantial question of law involved.

4.Background facts in a nutshell as projected by appellant are as follows :

5.The present case relates to a land measuring 3.23 acres belonging to the ancestors of Rao NihaI Karan Jamindara Bada Ravala of Indore and later on was a part of a religious and educational trust. The appellants are its trustees. The land in dispute is an important place where the appellant trust is carrying out annual Dussehra Puja even prior to independence. The Zamindar family used to perform puja from generation to generation. There was no dispute whatsoever raised about the said land upto 1969. The respondent was merely a vegetable seller who used to collect vegetables and fruits from the land on contract from the trust.

6.In 1969, Government issued a notice for ejectment under Section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (in short ‘the Code’) claiming the land to be a land of the Government and the appellant was dispossessed.

7.The Panchnama dated 12.6.1975 shows that the land in dispute was handed over to the Government by none else than the father of the respondents herein i.e. the original plaintiff Siddhanath.

8.An application for adjudication of right and title of the appellant was made before the Sub Divisional Officer, Indore, who was a competent authority under Section 57 of the Code.

9.Section 57 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code reads as under :

“57. State ownership in all lands. -

(1)All lands belong to the State Government and it is hereby declared that all such lands, including standing and flowing water, mines, quarries, minerals and forests reserved or not, and all right in the sub-soil of any land are the property of the State Government : Provided that nothing in this section shall, save as otherwise provided in this Code, be deemed to affect any rights of any person subsisting at the time of coming into force of this Code in any such property.

(2)Where a dispute arises between the State Government and any person in respect of any right under sub-section (1) such dispute shall he decided by the Sub-divisional Officer.

(3)Any person aggrieved by any order passed under sub-section (2) may institute a civil suit to Contest the validity of the order within a period of one year from the date of such order. (3-a) (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) no Civil Court shall, in a civil suit instituted under sub section (3) on or after 24th October, 1983, by order of temporary injunction disturb the person to whom possession is restored under section 250 if such person furnishes a reliable surety to recompensate the aggrieved party against any loss in case the Civil Court grants a decree in favour of the aggrieved : Provided that no surety shall he required to be furnished by a member of a tribe declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub-section (6) of Section165; (h) Where a Civil Court by an order of temporary injunction disturbed the person referred to in clause (a) on or after 24th October, 1983 but before the publication of Revenue Department’s Notification No.1-70-VII-N-2-83, dated 4th January, 1984 such order shall abate on such publication and the Tehsildar shall restore possession to a person who is disturbed by such order.

(4)Where a civil suit has been instituted under sub-section (3) against any order, such order shall not be subject to appeals or revision.”

10.The Sub-divisional Officer decided the title and d