ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

“A. To issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari for quashment of impugned orders (Annexure P-1 & P-2 collectively) passed by respondent no. 1 and 3 by setting aside and dismissed the case of respondents and may kindly be pleased to allow the case of petitioner regarding land in question and further be pleased to pass an order which is proper and suitable looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

B. Grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of this case, along with the cost of this writ petition be also awarded.”

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that the disputed property is Khasra No. 32, area 5.86 hectares situated in Village Sangrampur, Tehsil and District Burhanpur. It is submitted that Kaveri Bai, daughter of Sura filed an application under Section 113 of MPLR Code alleging that she is in possession of Khasra No. 32, area 5.86 hectares for the last 40 to 50 years. However, the said property is recorded in the name of Trayabank S/o Shantaram. Sometime in the years 2014-15, respondents No. 2 and 3 have got their names mutated in the revenue records in a clandestine manner and accordingly, it was pleaded that the name of Smt. Kaveri Bai be recorded in the revenue records. The report was sought from Naib Tehsildar, who submitted that Kaveri Bai is in possession of the land in dispute for the last several years and the name of respondent No. 2 was recorded in suspicious circumstances. Accordingly, the case was fixed for hearing. The counsel for respondents did not appear whereas the counsel for Kaveri Bai made a prayer for recording the name of Kaveri Bai.

3. The SDO, Burhanpur by order dated 28.12.2019 passed in Revenue Case No. 85/B-121/2019-20 rejected the application by holding that Khasra No. 32 was recorded in the name of Trayabank, minor son of Shantaram. Thereafter from the year 2014-15, the name of Vinod (respondent No. 2) was recorded. However, in Column No. 12, the detail of Case No. 9, order dated 21.04.2014 was mentioned. However, how the said entry was made and by the order of which officer is also not clear, therefore, it was held that the mutation of name of respondent No. 2 Vinod appears to be an incorrect entry.

4. So far as the application filed by Kaveri Bai is concerned, it was held that merely because the applicant Kaveri Bai claims that she is in possession of the property in dispute for the last 40 to 50 years would not give any rise to title. The persons in whose name the property was recorded i.e. respondent No. 3 is missing and the whereabouts of his legal representatives are also not known, therefore, Khasra No. 32, area

5.86 hectares was directed to be recorded as State property after deleting the name of respondent No. 2.

5. Challenging the said order, Kaveri Bai filed an appeal before Additional Collector, District Burhanpur which was registered as Appeal No. 29/2019-20 and by order dated 06th of March, 2021, the said appeal was dismissed. Similarly, appeal filed by Vinod which was registered as Appeal No. 37/2019-20 was also dismissed by the same order.

6. Challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector, Burhanpur, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that since the mother of the petitioner i.e. Kaveri Bai was in possession of the property in dispute for the last 40 to 50 years, therefore, she was entitled to get her name mutated in the revenue record.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. The counsel for petitioner could not point out any provision of law by which the name of a person shall be recorded as a Bhoomiswami merely on the ground that he or she is in possession of the property in dispute. If the person wants to claim some title on the basis of possession, then he has to seek a declaration from a competent court of civil jurisdiction by establishing his adverse possession. In absence of any such