( 1 ) THE questions referred to this Full Bench are whether the Civil Court cannot take cognizance of a suit instituted by Bhumiswami on the basis of his title, against a trespasser; and whether the decision in Nathu v. Dilbande Hussain, air 1967 Madh Pra 14, is no longer good law.

( 2 ) CHETU brought the suit against Ramgopal on the averment that he is the bhumiswami of survey No. 138/3 (area 5 Bighas 9 Biswas) of village Kulhar, tahsil Basoda. On or about July 15, 1963, the defendant wrongfully took possession of the suit land. The plaintiff used to earn about Rs. 150/- per year from the yield of the suit land. The defendant's case was that the plaintiff had entered into a contract with him to sell the suit land to him for Rs. 900/- He paid Rs. 900/- to the plaintiff and the plaintiff delivered possession to him. The plaintiff promised to execute a deed of sale in his favour but later on refused to do so. The learned Civil Judge, Class II, Basoda, rejected the defendant's plea and held that he wrongfully dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land. Accordingly, he passed a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. The defendant's appeal was dismissed by the Additional District judge, Vidisha.

( 3 ) THE defendant preferred this second appeal. When it came up for hearing before a Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the suit was barred by the provisions contained in Clause (x) of Section 257 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called the Revenue Code ). He relied on their Lordships' decision in Hatti v. Sunder Singh, AIR 1971 SC 2320 and urged that the view taken in Nathu v. Dilbande Hussain, AIR 1967 MP 14 = (1964 Jab lj 707) is no longer good law.

( 4 ) SECTION 250 of the Revenue Code, which enacts a remedy for reinstatement of a Bhumiswami, improperly dispossessed, reads thus:--

"250. Reinstatement of Bhumiswami improperly dispossessed. (1) If a Bhumiswami is dispossessed of the land otherwise than in due course of law or if any person unauthorisedly continues in possession of any land of the Bhumiswami to the use of which such person has ceased to be entitled under any provisions of this code, the Bhumiswami or his successor-in-interest may apply to the Tahsildar for restoration of the possession within two years from the date of dispossession or from the date on which the possession of such person becomes unauthorised, as the case may be.

(2) The Tahsildar shall, after making an enquiry into the respective claims of the parties, decide the application and when he orders the restoration of the possession to the bhumiswami put him in possession of the land.

(3) The Tahsildar may at any stage of the enquiry pass under Sub-section (2) an interim order for handing over the possession of the land to the applicant, if he finds that he was dispossessed by the opposite party within six months prior to the submission of the application under this section. In such a case the opposite party shall, if necessary, be ejected under orders of the Tahsildar.

(4) When an interim order has been passed under Subsection (3) the opposite party may be required by the tahsildar to execute a bond for such sum as the Tahsildar may deem fit for abstaining from taking possession of land until the final order is passed by the Tahsildar.

(5) If the person executing a bond is found to have entered on into or taken possession of the land in contravention of the bond, the Tahsildar may forfeit the bond in whole or in part and may recover such amount as an arrear of land revenue.

(6) If the order passed under Sub-section (2) is in favour of the applicant, the Tahsildar shall also award a reasonable compensation to be paid to the applicant by the opposite party; provided that the amount of compensation shall not exceed ten times the revenue of the land for each year's occupation.

(7) The compensation awarded under this section shall be recoverable as an arrear of land r