ORDER

1. Heard on I.A.No.7806 of 2023, an application for urgent hearing during summer vacation.

2. For the reasons assigned, the application is allowed.

3. Assailing the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition No.15876 of 2022, the respondents are in appeal.

4. It was the case of the writ petitioner that land bearing Khasra Nos.595/1, 595/2, 596/1, 592/2, 598, 599/2, 600/1/K and 600/2 situated at village Bagota, District Chhatarpur were recorded in the names of forefathers of the petitioner as Bhumiswami in the year 1958-59. Prior to coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), the land of the forefathers of the writ petitioners as recorded in Class-6 of "Kashtkaran Mourisi or Pattedar". On a complaint being filed, the Nazul Officer took into consideration the khasra entries of the year 1943-44 and did not take into consideration the khasra entries of the year 1952-53. The Tehsildar vide note-sheet dated 10.5.2019 forwarded the case of the Sub-Divisional Officer for forwarding it to the Collector as it has no powers to correct the entries older than five years. The Collector refused to accord the permission and despite refusal of the permission, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the impugned orders without authority of law by declaring the ancestral land of the writ petitioner as Government land.

5. It is the case of the appellant/State that an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal was available to the writ petitioner. It is submitted that in the light of the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.19040 of 2015 and on the basis of the report submitted by the Nazul Officer, the Collector forwarded the matter to the Tehsildar for correction of the record and the Sub-Divisional Officer corrected the land records. Since a Civil Suit No.24-A/2017 and an MJC No.82/2018 are pending before the competent Court and, therefore, learned Single Judge ought not to decide the question of title and ought to have remanded the matter to the revenue authorities. Hence, the present writ appeal.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned order contending that the learned Single Judge after going the relevant provisions of law has rightly decide the question and held that that the writ petitioner has acquired the status of Bhumiswami in the light of sections 157 and 158 of the Code. The Sub-Divisional Officer has passed the impugned order without authority of law, against which departmental action has also been taken against him. The said civil suit is not related to the lands of the writ petitioner but in respect of some other lands. Learned Single Judge considering the fact that the impugned order has been passed against a dead person without issuance of any notice or without giving any opportunity of hearing to the legal representative having no authority has rightly allowed the writ petition setting aside the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities, which does not warrant any interference in the present writ appeal. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner's forefathers are the owner of the lands in question for the last 75 years and the names of the petitioner's forefathers have been shown as "Kashtkaran Mourusi or Pattedar" falls under Class-6. On coming into force the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code on 2.10.1959 by virtue of section 158(d)(i), the original owner/writ petitioner acquired the status of a Bhumiswami. The father of the petitioner had already died and without issuance of any notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the legal representative, the impugned order without authority of law has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer gainst a dead person. It is also pertinent to note that no permission was given to Tehsildar/Sub Divisional Officer b