1. The substantial question of law formulated and to be answered in Plaintiff's second appeal is as under:-

"Whether the two Courts below have justified in deciding the suit as well as the first appeal overlooking the mandatory requirement of Section 11 (3) of C.G. Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings Act, 1960 particularly when the revenue record bears the name of the appellant?"

[For sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the suit before the trial Court]

2. Sans unnecessary details, the facts which are essential to be stated for the purpose of disposal of the present second appeal are as under:-

2.1 Plaintiff- Shyam Sunder Agrawal filed a suit seeking decree of declaration that the order passed by defendant No. 2 Competent Authority under the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as "the Act of 1960") holding the suit land as surplus land by order dated 30/06/1989 is null and void and not binding on him stating inter alia that the suit land has been purchased jointly by Baburam Agrawal, Shyam Sunder Agrawal and Maya Devi Agrawal by unregistered sale deed dated 30/09/1956 from erstwhile owner Smt. Rani Dhanraj Kunwar Devi and obtained possession thereof. Plaintiff's name was recorded in the revenue records and on registered partition dated 22/08/1974, 12.50 Acre fell in share of the plaintiff.

2.2 It is further case of the plaintiff that a Ceiling Case No. 136-A/90/B/74-75 was registered in the Court of competent authority under the Act of 1960, in which, the order was passed by the defendant No. 2. on 30/06/1989 declaring the suit land to be surplus land, holding it to be owned by defendant No. 4-Joyti Bhushan Pratap Singh and vested the land in favour of the defendant No. 4 on 30/06/1989 and the suit land likely to be allotted to the landless person.

2.3 It is further case of the plaintiff that being person interested to the land, he was required to be noticed under Section 11(3) of the Act of 1960 by competent authority before declaring land to be surplus land, and therefore, the order passed by the competent authority is not binding and the aforesaid decree as claimed be granted in his favour.

2.4 Defendants filed their joint written statement stating inter alia that the suit land was duly recorded in the name of erstwhile owner Smt. Rani Dhanraj Kunwar Devi and in the Khasra Panchshala for the year 1958-59 to 1962-63, the plaintiff's name was not recorded and the return furnished by Smt. Rani Dhanraj Kunwar Devi in the sale to the plaintiff by unregistered sale deed has not been disclosed.

2.5 It was further pleaded that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of the order of competent authority is barred, as no appeal or revision has been filed within 60 days from 30/06/1989 therefore, that suit deserves to be dismissed.

2.6 During the course of the trial, plaintiff examined two witnesses and exhibited nine documents in his support, whereas the defendants examined one witness and submitted eight documents in their support.

2.7 The trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, framed six issues and answered the same as under:-

dzekad okn fo”k; fu”d”kZ

1- D;k oknxzLr Hkwfe [kljk uacj 258@2?k jdck 12-50 ,dM+ Hkwfe oknh ckcwyky oxS0 ds lkFk fnukad 30-9-1956 dks Jherh /kujkt daqoj ls dz; dj LoRo ,oa vf/kiR; izkIr dj fy;k gS\ ugha

2- D;k izfr dz-2 us flfyax vf/kfu;e ds leLr izko/kkuksa ,oa fu;eksa dh vogsyuk djrs gq, fnukad 30-6-1989 dks oknxzLr Hkwfe ?kksf”kr dj fn;k gS\ ugha

3- D;k izfr- dz-2 lhfyax izdj.k dzekad 136v@90@c@74&75 esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 30-6-1989 ‘kwU;or gS\ ugha

4- D;k oknh dk okn /kkjk 46 lhfyax vf/kfu;e ds varxZr U;k;ky; dks Jo.k {ks=kf/kdkj gS\ gk¡

5- D;k oknh dk okn le;kof/k cká gS\ ugha

6- lgk;rk ,oa O;; gS\ nkok [kkfjt

2.8 The trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 30/10/1999 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff has failed to establish the purchase of the su