Per Shukla, J. 1. This Judgment shall govern the disposal of all these appeals which are directed against the judgment and order dated 2.8.1994 of learned Single Judge passed in WP No. 1311/94 whereby WP Nos. 1310/94, 1309/94, 1307/94, 1308/94, 1306/94, 1327/94, 1326/94 have been disposed off.

2. The brief history of the case is that the petitioners in all those petitions filed different petitions with the averments that they are Pujaris of Temple and the land attached to the Temple were given to them in Inam, Consequently they acquired right of Bhoomiswami under the provisions of section 158 of MP Land Revenue Code (for short ‘the Code’). They are continuously in possession of the land, their names were recorded as Bhoomiswami along with the Collector of the District. However, Government of MP by an executive order Annex. P-5 directed for removal of the names of the petitioners from the revenue records with a further direction that the Collector of the District be incorporated as ‘Manager’. It was further contended that this is contrary to law and is a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25, 26, 31A and 300A of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners were neither given notice nor opportunity of hearing. Their rights are protected under section 195 of the Code and thereafter under section 158 of the Code. It was further asserted that the petitioners have acquired right and the same cannot be taken away by an executive order. Petitioners are entitled to be recognised and recorded as Bhoomiswami. It was, therefore, prayed that the executive order P-5 be quashed and their names should be allowed to continue as Bhoomiswami of the land.

The respondent-State vehemently opposed the relief sought by the petitioners and submitted that the petition involves a question of title to the immovable property and that cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition. It has also been submitted that order is of 1992 and, therefore, petition is not maintainable due to delay and laches. It has also been submitted that as alternative remedy of declaration of title by civil Court is available to the petitioners.

After hearing the rival contentions of the parties, the learned Single Judge has accepted the right to possession of petitioners but as the question of title is involved, declined to interfere and dismissed the petition with following directions:

“(a) The petitioner may resort to common civil law through proper civil suit.

(b) The respondents shall not dispossess the petitioner from the lands in question without notice of reasonable duration and hearing and in case of risk of dispossession, the petitioner may take appropriate steps to protect the same, if justifiable on facts and in law. The proper forum will decide that question, as and when occasion arises, in accordance with law.”

Hence these appeals by the petitioners/appellants.

3. Contention of learned counsel for appellant is that the petitioners were Inamdars and have been recognised as Bhoomiswami under the Code, since right has been conferred on them by operation of law, their names were recorded as Bhoomiswami. Therefore, State Government by an executive order cannot direct removal of names of the petitioners which shall adversely affect their rights. It has also been submitted that the names of the petitioners could not be removed by executive instructions without notice and without giving them an opportunity of hearing.

As against it, learned counsel for respondent State has submitted that the right of the petitioners have been protected to the extent that they shall not be dispossessed excepting in due process of law and, therefore, deletion of names from revenue records would be a matter which can be adjudicated on filing of the suits by the petitioners in civil Court.

4. We have perused the records, documents and legal provisions, as submitted by learned counsel for parties.

5. Admittedly all the petitioners belong to area which form part of erstwhile Holkar