ORDER

This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2018 passed by District Judge, Katni in Civil Appeal No.134/2017 affirming the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2017 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Dhimarkheda, District Katni in civil suit No.56-A/2016 whereby suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of land khasra No.333/1 (Kha) and 333/1 (Ga) area 26.78 acre (new no.528 area 7.49 hectare) situated in Village Gopalpur has been dismissed.

2. In short the facts are that the plaintiff instituted the suit with the allegations that his great grand father Ganesh Prasad was owner/bhoomiswami of the land in question and after his death the land came in the name of plaintiff’s grand father Moujilal and was so recorded in the revenue papers, but after bandobast the land was recorded by the defendants in the name of State Government illegally and upon filing application for correction of the revenue record the application was dismissed by Tahsildar. With these allegations, the suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

3. Defendants appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint allegations and contended that after bandobast the land was recorded in the name of State Government and learned Tahsildar dismissed the application for correction of revenue record on merits, against which no appeal was filed before the competent revenue court. With these contentions the suit was prayed to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed issues and recorded evidence of the parties and after due consideration of the same, learned trial court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated

08.09.2017, which in appeal filed by the plaintiff-Ramgopal has been affirmed vide judgment and decree dated 31.08.2018.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant submits that learned courts below have committed illegality in passing the impugned judgment and decree. He submits that the revenue record available in the file shows that the land was recorded in the name of Moujilal in the year 1956-58 and even prior to that, the land was recorded in the name of Ganesh Prasad in the year 1908-1909. He further submits that since beginning the land in question has been in possession of Ganesh Prasad, thereafter Moujilal and now is in possession of the plaintiff, therefore, learned Tahsildar erred in dismissing the application for correction of the revenue record, and consequently the learned courts below have also erred in dismissing the suit. With these contentions he prays for admission of the second appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

7. Apparently, the land in question has been recorded in the revenue papers in the name of Ganesh Prasad and Moujilal, but there is no revenue entry available on record after the year 1958 and the M.P. Land Revenue Code came into existence in the year 1959. As there is no revenue entry available on record of the year 1959 or thereafter and undisputedly the land was recorded in the name of State Government and further the entries available on record show that the land was not under cultivation but it was recorded as “Chhote Jhad Ka Jungle”. As such in absence of any challenge to the entry of the name of State Government after the year 1958 the same cannot be challenged after a long lapse of time by filing a suit in the year 2015.

8. As such in my considered opinion there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned courts below and there being no involvement of substantial question of law, interference in the impugned judgement and decree, is hereby declined.

9. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he may be granted liberty to approach the Bandobast Adhikari, as has been observed by SDO in th