1. Challenge in this appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is made to a judgment-dated 4.3.1998 passed by District Judge, Panna in Civil Suit No. 14-A/1995, whereby a suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for declaration has been rejected.

2. In the suit in question, appellants/plaintiffs sought a declaration to the effect that an order-dated 21.6.1994 passed by the District Collector, Panna in Revenue Case No. 40A-63/92-93 under section 241 of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code’) be declared as valid and based on the aforesaid order appropriate compensation be paid to the appellants for the trees which have been cut down from the area in question. According to the appellants, land bearing Khasra No. 5/2, Bandobast No. 52, Patwari Halka No.15 total area 4.92 Hectares, situated in village Kota, Tahsil and District Panna originally belonged to their mother, one Smt. Ghansi Bai, wife of Balloo Yadav. It is stated that the aforesaid land was recorded in the revenue records in the name of their mother. In the aforesaid land 388 Saugon Trees were available. Sometime in the year 1992, Late Smt. Ghansi Bai filed an application under section 241 of the Code seeking permission for cutting and disposal of certain trees situated on the land. The case was registered as Revenue Case No. 40-A/63/92-93; Collector, Panna is said to have investigated into the matter and finally passed an order on 21.6.1994 – Annexure P/1, permitting appellants’ mother to cut only 130 trees out of the 388 available on the land. It is said that based on the aforesaid order passed by the Collector upto 15.8.1994, appellants’ mother with the help of officials of the Forest Department had cut 130 Saugon Trees and thereafter she moved an application to the Forest Department for giving her payment for the aforesaid trees. However, in November 1994, she died and as till date nothing was done, appellants, who are her legal representatives, filed the suit in question, the suit having been dismissed this appeal is filed and the claim made now is that the order passed by the Collector be given effect to and based on the same, the amount payable to the appellants be paid.

3. Shri Hemant Namdeo, learned counsel for the appellants, referred to the order-dated 21.6.1994 – Ex.P/1, and argued that the Collector has exercised his statutory powers under the Code; he had conducted a detailed inquiry wherein reports were called for from the Forest Officials, Sub Divisional Officer and Tehsildar; and, based on the permission granted by the Collector, appellants’ mother having cut the trees, they were entitled to the entire amount arising out of transfer of the trees to the Forest Department. Instead of declaring appellants entitled to the amount, the suit has been dismissed which is unsustainable. Taking us through the statements of certain witnesses available on record, Khasra Panchshala and the revenue records, showing the land entered in the name of appellants’ mother, learned counsel argued that the suit has been dismissed without appreciating the totality of the facts and circumstances, and when the land is shown to be belonging to appellants’ mother and when the trees were cut after permission and due approval of the Collector, the learned trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the suit. Referring to various documents available on record, particularly the revenue records, learned counsel tried to emphasize that the right of the appellants to the suit property, namely the land, is established and when the land is found to be belonging to the appellants and when the trees were cut after due permission and approval of the competent authority – namely the Collector, there was no occasion for dismissing the suit or denying benefit to the appellants. Accordingly, the prayer made is that the suit be decreed to the extent of declaration with regard to the letter and the rights accruing to the appellants b