( 1 ) APPELLANTS/plaintiffs have filed this appeal under S. 100 of the civil Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 7-12-1996, passed by the Second Additional District judge, Sidhi in Civil Regular Appeal No. 55-A/1995, whereby the judgment and decree dated 12-3-1968 regarding of suit passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Baidhan in civil Suit No. 11-A/1980 has been upheld.

( 2 ) AS per factual matrix of the case the appellants had filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents in respect of Revenue land bearing Survey Nos. 348, 349/3 and 354 total area 19. 50 acres situated at village Madhauli Tahsil Singrauli district Sidhi M. P. According to the appellants, they had possession of the said land since last 40 years, earlier as "gair Hakdar kashtkar"; and on coming into force the madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") they have acquired the right of Bhumiswami. It is also pleaded that some Patta was given to the appellants, by the then erstwhile Estate on coming into force the aforesaid Code. An application under S. 162 of the Code was filed before Tahsjldar, on consideration by order dated 13-2-1965 in Revenue Case No. 93a/74/6364 appellants names were directed to be mutated as Bhumiswami. Such order was not challenged by respondent No. 1 within prescribed limitation but subsequently in a suo motu revision bearing No. 12 Nigrani/73-78 by order dated 23-6-1996 collector Sidhi has set aside order. The same was challenged before the Commissioner rewa in Revision No. 3-A/74-75-76 but it was dismissed on dated 20-3-1977 on which the Board of Revenue was approached by the appellants by Revision No. 183-IIIrd 77 with revision No. 356-1/77 but appellants could not get success and it was also dismissed by order dated 20-7-1979 then the impugned suit to declare them bhoomiswami and also for protecting their possession was filed by the appellants.

( 3 ) BY filing written statement on behalf of respondent No. 1 State, it was contended that the lands in question are reserve forest land and was never remained in possession of the appellants. The order passed by tahsildar Singroli in favour of appellants was illegal as it was under the contravention of the concerning Rules and Regulations. Appellants had no rights or title over the aforesaid land, the suit is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

( 4 ) WHILE respondent No. 2 who was as alleged subsequent allottee of some part of the aforesaid lands for the purpose of constructing the Petrol Pump by filing his written statement he has stated that he acquired right under the lease agreement from respondent no. 1. He has already started the construction for Petrol Pump. Appellants had no right and interest over the property. The lease granted in his favour was justified by saying that the State is the only authority to grant lease for such land and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

( 5 ) AFTER framing the issues the evidence was recorded on appreciation of it, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court on appeal it was also dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence this Second appeal.

( 6 ) THIS appeal was admitted for final hearing by order dated 29-1-1997 on the following substantial questions of law :

" (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the first appellate court was justified in holding that as the appellants did not challenge the interlocutory order passed by the trial Court refusing to summon the witnesses by way of revision the order has become final and cannot be challenged in appeal?

(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the first appellate court was right in holding that in view of section 57 (2) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, civil Court would have no jurisdiction?

(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Court was justified in holding that the appellants have failed to prove their possession

Click Here to Read the rest of this document