The main legal point established in the judgment is that only the Settlement Officer or the Collector are the competent authority to pass any order in respect of correction of map as per section 107 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

ORDER/JUDGMENT :? Shri A. K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri M. M. Bohara, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 18-12-2012, passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby the order passed by the subordinate authorities has been set aside.

2. Facts of the case are as under :

3. The petitioner filed an application under sections 89, 115 and 116 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Tehsildar Moman Barodiya seeking correction of revenue map. According to the petitioner, he is owner of land bearing Survey No. 1342/1, 1342/2 (Area 0.31 and 0.31 hectare) and before settlement the Survey No. 435/5 (Area 0.82) which has been reduced by 0.20 hectares after the settlement, hence, the map is liable to be corrected.

4. Tehsildar, Moman Barodiya after conducting enquiry found that there is a mistake in the map which is liable to be corrected and send the report to the SDO, Shajapur. The SDO, Shajapur after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties directed the Tehsildar to correct record and accordingly the Tehsildar, Moman Barodiya has corrected the record.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of SDO, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector which has been dismissed vide order dated 28-2-2009. Thereafter, he preferred another appeal to the Additional Commissioner, but that too has been dismissed vide order dated 9-8-2010. Thereafter, he approached the Board of Revenue by way of revision. By order dated 18-12-2012, the Board of Revenue has set aside all the three aforesaid orders on the ground that under section 107 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 the Collector is the competent authority to pass an order in respect of correction of map. Hence, present petition before this Court.

6. I have heard Shri A. K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri M. M. Bohara, learned counsel for the respondent.

7. For ready reference section 107 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 is reproduced below :

“107. Field map. – (1) There shall be prepared a map showing the boundaries of survey numbers or plot numbers and waste lands called the field map for every village except when otherwise directed by the State Government.

(2) There may be prepared for the abadi of each village a map showing the area occupied by private holders and the area not so occupied and such other particulars as may be prescribed.

(3) If the State Government considers that in the case of any village it is necessary to show separately in the map prepared under sub-section (2) the plot so occupied by private holders, it may direct the Collector to get the map so prepared or revised.

(4) If any Gram Panchayat passes a resolution that a map of the village abadi should be prepared showing separately the plots occupied by private holders and is willing to contribute to the cost of survey operations in such proportion as may be prescribed, the State Government may undertake the preparation of such map.

(5) Such map shall be prepared or revised, as the case may be, by the Settlement Officer at (revenue survey) and by the Collector at all other times and in all other circumstances.”

It is clear from the aforesaid provision of section 107 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 only the Settlement Officer or the Collector are the competent authority to pass any order in respect of correction of map. The petitioner has wrongly approached the Tehsildar seeking correction of the map. The SDO, Collector and Commissioner did not consider the scope of section 107 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and passed the order. Even otherwise, the Board of Revenue passed the order in the year 2012 and the petitioner approached this Court in the year 2018 i.e. after a period of 6 years. The Board of Revenue has only remanded the case to the Collector for deciding afresh.

Hence, I do not find any illegality or infirm