1. Heard.

2. By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are praying for quashment of order dated 29.12.2008 passed by the Tahsildar, whereby application under section 113 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, was rejected.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the ancestors of the petitioners belong to Brahmin Caste and they came prior to 60-70 years to Village Jamanyapura, Tahsil Kukshi, District - Dhar and since then they are residing in the Bhilala families as the father of the petitioner had got his second marriage with a Bhilala lady and on the basis of the same, they are claiming the benefit of Bhilala Caste, but as per rules, on the basis of the caste of the mother, the said benefit was not granted because their father was a Brahmin as in the revenue record the caste of the petitioners' father is mentioned as Brahmin and, therefore, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer has refused to mutate their caste as Bhilala.

4. In reply, a preliminary objection was raised by the respondents/State, on the ground that the impugned order is appealable under section 44 of MPLR Code, 1959. The petitioners without exhausting the statutory remedies available with them, directly challenged the order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition on the aforesaid ground.

5. On merit, learned Deputy Government Advocate submits that the caste certificate of the petitioners has not been decided by the Competent Committee and, therefore, unless and until the same is decided, the Sub-Divisional Officer has rightly rejected the prayer made in the application of the petitioners.

6. In reply, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are ready to raise a dispute by filing an application before the Caste Committee in view of law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others [(1994)6 SCC 241]. She has also drawn my attention to the latest decision of the apex Court in the case of Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika v. State of Gujarat and others [(2012)3 SCC 400] and submitted that the Competent Authority is the Scrutiny Committee of the Government of M.P. In pursuance to the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), this Court directs the petitioners to avail the said remedy by raising a dispute before the Caste Scrutiny Committee of the Government of M.P. and in case the Committee decide the application in favour of the petitioners then they are at liberty to apply before the competent authority for mutation of their name on the basis of the aforesaid order. It is made it clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

With the aforesaid, liberty Writ Petition No.1695 of 2011 is disposed of.