ORDER

1. Since the pleadings are complete, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally.

2. By the instant petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.12.2019 (Annexure P-15) passed by the respondent No.3 Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhatarpur, declaring the lands belonging to the family of the petitioner as Government land. The petitioner is also assailing the order dated 6.5.2022 (Annexure P-18), which is an order passed by respondent No.4 by which it has been directed to record the land in question as a Government land.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the resident of Chhatarpur. Agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos.595/1, 595/2, 596/1, 592/2, 598, 599/2, 600/1/K, 600/2 situated in Village Bagota, District Chhatarpur were recorded in the name of the father of the petitioner namely, Surendra Singh and others. The aforesaid lands were recorded in the names of forefathers of the petitioner as Bhumiswami in the year 1958-59. It is pertinent to mention that 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 petitioner was recorded in Class-6 of “Kashtkaran Mourusi or Pattedar”. Way back in the year 1969 one Sadanand Singh, who was holding the land, submitted an application before the Tahsildar for recording the name as Bhumiswami on various khasras bearing nos. 596, 598, 599, 600/2. The then Tahsildar registered the proceedings and recorded the name of Sadanand Singh as “Bhumiswami” on the aforesaid lands. Since thereafter the aforesaid lands were recorded in the names of forefathers of the petitioner.

4. Some proceedings were initiated on the basis of frivolous complaints made by one retired revenue officer and his associates, who have been held to be a “busy body” by the High Court in Writ Petition No.17304/2016; wherein this Court vide order dated 11.1.2018 has imposed a cost of Rs.25,000/- and has also been held that the petitioner is in habit of filing the frivolous complaints with the intent to create pressure upon the revenue officers and as a result that the orders passed against many such persons. On the basis of complaint, the Nazul Officer recommended action as per law. Copy of the report dated 13.7.2011 was submitted and in the so called inquiry, no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the effected persons/petitioner. Based on the aforesaid report, the Collector, Chhatarpur initiated action vide order dated 17.3.2016 but found that revision is not maintainable. However, the matter was remanded back to the Nazul Officer to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. During the pendency of the proceedings, the father of the petitioner late Surendra Singh died and despite of the aforesaid, no efforts were made to substitute the legal representatives/petitioner and the order was passed against a dead person.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner’s forefathers are the owners of the lands in question for last more than 75 years. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate held that no opportunity of hearing is required and the parties were already given opportunity of hearing by the Collector and by this Court. In fact the Sub-Divisional Magistrate himself had forwarded the matter to the Collector for its approval and he has refused to grant the approval even thereafter the Sub-Divisional Officer himself assumed the power on the basis of earlier order and passed the illegal order against the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that section 57 of the Code very clearly protects the rights of Bhumiswami existing prior to its coming into force of the Code. Apart from the aforesaid, section 108 of the Code contains the provisions for recording rights, section 123 of the Code contains provisions regarding record of rights of various kinds