JUDGMENT

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. - The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this plaintiff's second appeal is as under: -

"Whether the findings of both the Courts below that the Patta in favour of the plaintiff of the suit land was not illegally cancelled, is justified in view of the fact that the same was passed without following the procedure prescribed under Section 51 of the Land Revenue Code and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff ?"

(For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the plaint before the trial Court.)

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction stating inter-alia that patta was granted in his favour by the Naib-Tahsildar, Kanker on 13.8.96, which was illegally revoked by the Sub-Divisional Officer (R.), Kanker suo moto by order dated 28.7.98 in exercise of powers under Section 51 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called as "Code"). On appeal being preferred by the plaintiff against the order of the SDO, the Collector, Kanker by order dated 21.12.98 dismissed the same finding no merit and claimed reliefs as stated-above.

3. Defendant No.1 filed its written statement stating inter-alia that the plaintiff has illegally encroached upon the suit land and patta granted to him has rightly been revoked by the Sub-Divisional Officer and order of the SDO has been affirmed by the Collector, Kanker. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the Sub-Divisional Officer has rightly cancelled the order of the NaibTahsildar and order of the SDO has rightly affirmed by the Collector. On appeal being preferred by the plaintiff, the first appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court, against which, this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff, in which substantial question of law has been formulated and set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

4. Mr.Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, would submit that the order revoking patta granted to the plaintiff by the Sub-Divisional Officer (R.), Kanker on 28.7.98 was clearly in breach of principle of natural justice and both the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

5. Mr.Salim Kazi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/defendant, would support the impugned judgment and decree.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

7. The plaintiff was granted patta of the suit land on 13.8.96 by the Naib-Tahsildar, Kanker, which was revoked by the Sub-Divisional Officer (R.), Kanker on 28.7.98. Against the order of the SDO, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Collector, Kanker questioning that order under Section 44 (1) of the Code. The learned Collector, Kanker by its order dated 21.12.1998 dismissed the appeal finding no merit. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed by order of the Collector dated 21.12.1998 and the plaintiff being party to the order dated 21.12.1998 was required to seek cancellation of the order passed by the Collector, which he omitted to do so. In the plaint, neither he sought cancellation of order dated 21.12.1998 nor he sought declaration that order of the Collector is illegal and bad in law.

8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jugraj Singh and another v. Jaswant Singh and others, (1971) AIR SC 761 has held as under:-

"11......We are also satisfied that the appellants were not entitled to a declaration. We have reproduced the paragraph in which the reliefs were asked in the plaint. It will be noticed that they neither asked for the cancellation of the order of the Collector nor for any injunction, two of the reliefs which they were entitled to ask in the case in addition to the declar