The accrual of Bhumiswami rights under Section 190 of M.P. Land Revenue Code is automatic on the factual existence of the conditions mentioned in the section, and khasra entries can be presumed to be correct unless rebutted.

Anil Kumar Sharma, J.

The appellant has filed this First Appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C. against judgment and decree dated 28.01.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge (FTC) Gwalior in Civil Suit No.62-A/10 whereby suit filed by the appellant and respondents no.3 and 4 for declaration of title and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/plaintiff and respondents no.3 and 4/plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against defendants/respondents no.1 and 2 in respect of the plots situated at land survey No.937 at village Mahalgaon which is marked as 'v' 'c' 'l' in the map filed with the plaint. The plaintiff also purchased plots from its Bhumiswami Jaswant Singh S/o Badna Singh by registered sale deed dated 03.06.1989 and his name was mutated in the revenue record on 30.12.1989. The plot of the plaintiff/appellant has been marked as 'v' in the plaint map. The plaintiff has constructed the boundary wall on it and no objection certificate was issued by competent authority under Section 26 of Urban Land Ceiling Act in Case No.592/92-93 B. The respondents/defendants no.1 and 2 without adopting the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act and without paying the compensation to the plaintiffs are trying to demolish the boundary wall and construct the road over the suit land. The defendants have never been issued the notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. The defendants have no right to dispossess the plaintiff without adoption the due process of law under the Land Acquisition Act. The defendants have demolished the boundary wall even after receiving the notice given by the plaintiff on 11.02.1998, thereafter causing loss of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that defendants are not entitled to take forcible possession and they have no right to construct the road over the disputed plots without adopting the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act and further for retaining the defendants permanently from dispossessing the plaintiff from suit land and to restrain from construction of a road.

3. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiffs have also made averments in the plaint by way of amendment in the plaint stating that defendants have forcibly occupied the land without paying the compensation and have constructed the road on the disputed plots. The market value of the plaintiffs' land is Rs.300/- per sq.ft and the plaintiffs are entitled to the compensation at this rate.

4. The defendants/respondents no.1 and 2 in their written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint and inter alia contended that that in Samvat 2007, the land survey No.937 was recorded as Govt. land. The vendor Jaswant Singh S/o Badna Singh had no right and title to sell out the disputed land and the alleged sale deeds are void and ineffective. The disputed land is entered in the plaintiffs' names in the revenue record in collusion with the revenue employees. The Collector, Gwalior, has issued the acquisition notice on the basis of notification dated 13.10.1992 and acquired the land survey No.937. Notices were issued on 24.02.2012 for acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of over bridge. The defendants have not received notice dated 11.02.1998 and suit is not maintainable in the absence of notice under Section 80 of C.P.C.

5. Learned trial Court by impugned judgment dismissed the suit by holding that the title and possession of the plaintiff has not been proved on the suit land and it is further held that defendants are trying to construct the road and further defendants are not trying to acquire the land under the Land Acquisition Act. Aggrieved by the judgment, the plaintiff has filed this appeal on the ground that the learned trial Court has committed error in evaluating the evidentiary value of Khasra Samvat 2007 wherein predecessor-in-title have been entered as Bhumiswami. Howeve