1. Short facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff/appellant instituted a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction with allegations that the land comprised in survey No.903 in area 0.073 hectare, and survey No. 904 in area O. 721 hactare situated in village Aeon belonged to the State of Madhya Pradesh. It was granted to Gram Panchayat Aeon in the year 1965 for plantation. Gram Panchayat occupied the said land by performing plantation. Adjacent to it, other land comprised in survey Nos.

905,906,907 and 909 is situated which belongs to defendant/respondents No.1 to 5. On formantion of Nagar Palika Aron and thereafter of Nagar Panchayat Aeon, land belonging to Gram Panchayat Aeon stood vested in the plaintiff. It is further alleged that a change was made in the field map by the revenue inspector, Aeon on 03-12-1994 on account of order dated 11-11-1994 passed by Additional Collector in case No. 20-N74-73:74 and of Tahsildar Aeon dated 01-12-1994 bearing No. Q/Re/l/94. Change was made in the map of Samwat 2014 (corresponding year 1957-58) after a period of 34 year which is contrary to law.

2. Plaintiff claimed for the relief that the change made in the settlement map and current map by which in place of survey No.904, Survey No.905 was mentioned and in place of Survey No.905, Survey No. 904 was mentioned, is ineffective and non-binding on the plaintiff and that no interference may be made into the possession of the plaintiff over the land which he holds as survey No.904 (though it is shown as survey No.905 in the map) 3. Defendant/respondents No. 1 to 5 submitted their written statement and counter-claim, refuting thereby claim of the plaintiff. They interalia contended that Champalal, predecessor of defendant/respondents No.1 to 5 had purchased the disputed land comprised in survey No. 905 in area 0.606 hectare from Aisauddin vide registered sale deed dated 01-01-1968 and obtained possession of the same. There occurred an error on the party of settlement officer, who had mentioned survey No.904 in place of survey No.905 in the settlement year of 20 13. Similarly survey No.905 was shown in place of survey No.904. Champalal on coming to know about this mistake made an application for correction of map which was registered as case No.20-N74-73:74. Upon the said application, Tahsildar Aron made an enquiry. Contention of Champalal was thereafter accepted by Collector vide order dated 30-8-1974. Order was made for necessary correction. Gram Panchayat was party in the said case and objections preferred by Gram Panchayat were rejected. Nagar Palika Parishad, Aron being successor of Gram Panchayat, Aron accepted the order of the Collector and submitted an application for mutation pursuant thereto. Thus, the plaintiff's predecessor was well aware of said order dated 30-8-1974 which was not challenged during the prescribed period. Thus, said order is binding on the plaintiff and the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that the defendants are recorded Bhoomiswami and occupier of the land comprised in survey No. 905 which was duly purchased by the defendant/ respondents No.1 to 5. It was prayed through counter-claim that the defendant/respondents No.1 to 5 be declared Bhoomiswami and occupier of survey No. 905. This apart, it was specifically stated in the written statement that map having been changed under the order of revenue officer, civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

4. Written statement to counter-claim was also submitted by the plaintiff, refuting thereby the allegations of the defendant.

5. Learned trial Judge after hearing the arguments on preliminary issues No.5,6 and 10, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 03-11-2001, holding that the suit of plaintiff was not maintainable. Aggrived by it, an appeal was preferred unsuccessfully. Thereafter, the present appeal is preferred, which has been admitted and heard on the following substantial question of law:

Whethe