The provisions of MPLRC, particularly section 170-B, were interpreted to determine their applicability to transactions prior to 1980 and the authority of revenue authorities in deciding title disputes.

ORDER :

Shri J. B. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the respondent.

With consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.

The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 16-11-2017 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Revenue, Pansemal; order dated 11-4-2010 passed by Additional Collector, Barwani; and order dated 23-3- 2019 passed by Additional Commissioner, Indore Division.

2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under :

(i) Respondent filed an application before the SDO seeking correction of name in the revenue record. According to him, he belongs to Scheduled Tribe, resident of Village Chatli, Tehsil Niwali, District Barwani. The land bearing Survey No. 343/5 Patwari Halka No. 8 area 0.10 Acre is an agricultural land and the same was recorded in the name of his grandfather – Gana S/o. Ismal Barela in Column No. 12 vide order No. 6119 dated 28-7-1955. He was illiterate and his father was also illiterate and they had no knowledge about the entries in the revenue record. Some time back, he came to know that the aforesaid land is recorded in the name of Nathulal s/o Bhuralal. Thereafter, he obtained the copy of the revenue record and found that in Samwat 2013 in Column No. 14 of ‘Khasra Panchsala’ the land has been recorded in the name of Bhuralal Balmukund vide order dated 10-9-1959. He stated that his grandfather and his father had not sold the land in question to anyone. Nathulal got recorded his name in the revenue record by way of forgery. The land of a tribe cannot be transferred in the name of non-tribe, therefore, entries be corrected and his name be mutated in the revenue record in place of Nathulal. The Tehsildar registered the case and issued notice to the present petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under Order 13 Rule 10 of CPC for summoning the record of Case No. 6119 and order dated 28-7- 1955. The Tehsildar directed the Patwari to submit the report.

(ii) After obtaining the report from Patwari, the Tehsildar submitted his report dated 3-5-2017 to the SDO recommending for recording the name of the respondent in the revenue record. The SDO has considered the report and also summoned the record of the year 1963-64 and thereafter passed the order dated 16-11-2017 in favour of the respondent. The SDO has held that the name of Gana was recorded in the revenue record (Kishtabandi Khatauni) of the year 1958-59, and 1961-62, 1963-64 and “Panchsala Samwat 2018 to 2022. The petitioner has not produced any record in respect of transfer of the land in question in favour of Nathulal. As per report given by Patwari, no one was found into the possession of the land in question. As per the record of the year 1963-64 in B-1 Khatauni, the land belonging to the tribe has been recorded in the name of a non-tribe which is violation of section 170-B of M. P. Land Revenue Code (MPLRC). The SDO accordingly directed the petitioner to handover the possession of the land in question to the respondent.

(iii) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of SDO, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector. Additional Collector has also observed that the present petitioner has failed to prove as to how the land was recorded in the name of Nathulal in the year 1963-64 and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Additional Commissioner, who has also dismissed the appeal on the ground that the land of a tribe has wrongly been recorded in the name of Nathulal, who is a non-tribe. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

3. Shri J. B. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the name of father of petitioner was recorded in B-1 Kishtabandi Khatauni of the year 1953-54. Learned revenue authorities have wrongly ignored the aforesaid entries in the revenue record. The burden has wrongly been shifted on the petitioner to prove the ownership of the land in question, whereas, the respondent