The main legal point established in the judgment is that Revenue Authority does not confer any title on landowners, and the need to establish title through a suit when challenging mutations in the revenue record.

ORDER :

These are connected Writ Petitions. The issue involved in all these Writ Petitions are similar, thus same are being decided by this common order. For the sake of the convenience the facts are being taken from the Writ Petition No.10567/2022.

The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition being aggrieved by the order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the Collector, Ratlam whereby direction has been issued to correct revenue record by mutating the name of Ambaram S/o Bhera Bhil for the land survey No.153 and 154.

[2]. According to the petitioners their ancestors were in peaceful possession of the land survey No.153 and 154 since 1964-65.Their names were recorded in the revenue records. After their death the names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue records and they are having possession till today. The Collector, Ratlam has issued show cause notice dated 26.10.2021 to the petitioner that in Misal Bandobast of 1957-58, the land survey No.123 was registered in the name of Ambaram and after settlement in the year 1996-97, the land was renumbered as 153 and 154 and mutated in the name Kareem Khan, Jareen Kha and at present in the name of Rajaram and Omprakash and Jareen Kha. The petitioner was called upon to explain on what basis this land was transferred in his name. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice and thereafter final order dated 28.04.2022 has been passed. The learned Collector held that the land was mutated in the name of the petitioners in violation of Section 165(6) of M.P.L.R.C., therefore, the Collector in exercise of power under Section 50 of M.P.L.R.C. has directed for restoring the name of Ambaram in the revenue record. Hence, this Writ Petition before this Court.

[3] Some of the petitioners approached before the Commissioner by way of Appeal but same was dismissed as not maintainable.

[4] After notice, the respondents filed reply by submitting that Ambaram was aboriginal tribe and the land belonging to him was not liable to be transferred without permission of the Collector therefore by virtue Section 165(6) of M.P.L.R.C, the said transfer is void. The similar issue has been decided by Apex Court in case of Ranveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2010(4) M.P.L.J. 178 in which it has been held that the limitation to exercise the power under Section 50 of M.P.L.R.C is 180 days from the day when Tehsildar passed the order or from the date of knowledge, hence, no interference is called for, thus Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

[5] The brother of Ambaram i.e. Uderam has filed an application seeking intervention in the Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Collector on the ground that being brother of Ambaram his name is also liable to be mutated alongwith Ambaram as joint owner.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

[6] The respondents filed copy of letter dated 22.10.2021 (Annexure R/3) written by Office of Tehsildar, Jawra to Sub Divisional Officer, Jawra that in the year 1996-58 survey No.43 area 6 beegha, 12 beeswa was recorded in the name of Ambaram who was Bhil by caste, therefore, necessary action be taken in the matter. As per the reference/subject the aforesaid letter was written on oral order of the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer, Jawra vide letter dated 22.10.2021 forwarded the aforesaid report to Collector, Ratlam, who in turn issued show casue notice dated 26.10.2021 to all the petitioners and after calling the reply, the impugned order dated 28.04.2022 has been passed, therefore, it is no a case where the Ambaram or any other claimant submitted any application for cancellation of the mutation in the name of these petitioners. It appears from the aforesaid letter, the Sub Divisional Officer by way of oral direction suo moto invited report from the Tehsildar and on the basis of said report, the Collector initiated the proceedings under Section 165(6) of M.P.L.R.C. As per revenue record, after resettle