ORDER

The instant petition is languishing since 2002 to see its fate and listed under caption ‘final hearing list’. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2 .By the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 08.12.2000 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Board of Revenue whereby while setting aside the order dated 31.01.2000 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and holding that the respondent-company is having bhumiswami right over the land in question by virtue of Section 158 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for brevity ‘Code, 1959’), declared them as bhumiswami directing revenue authorities to correct the record and name of the respondent-company be recorded as bhumiswami of the land in question.

3 .The principal ground of challenging the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is that the Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction while making such a declaration and in the given situation, it was incumbent upon the respondent-company to have filed a civil suit and sought for declaration.

4 .In contrast, learned counsel for the respondent-company submitted that the respondent-company had moved an application before the Sub Divisional Officer under Section 57 (2) of the Code claiming that since the land was in possession of the respondent-

company by virtue of lease-deed granted by the State Government in the year 1943 i.e. before enforcement of the Code of 1959, therefore, under the provisions of Section 158 of the Code, they acquired the bhumiswami right and as such they sought declaration in that regard. He submitted that although the Sub Divisional Officer was having jurisdiction to decide such dispute, despite that he refused to entertain the application on the ground that the dispute was not between the State and the company, although it was between the Municipal Corporation and the respondent-company. He accentuated that the lease-deed was issued by the Municipal Board, therefore, SDO was having no jurisdiction to decide the dispute under Section 57(2) of the Code and that dispute does not fall within the purview of ‘dispute’, which is to be decided by the authority under Section 57 of the Code. The order was therefore challenged before the Board of Revenue and in turn, the Board of Revenue came to pass the order and made declaration in favour of the respondent-company.

5. The core question for adjudication involved in the case is as to whether the Board of Revenue was having jurisdiction to make declaration in favour of the respondent-company declaring them to be bhumiswami by virtue of right acquired by them under Section 158 of the Code.

6. To unravel the complexity of the dispute, the adumbration of succinct facts is required, which is as follows :-

The land which is involved in this case occupied by the respondent-Company claiming themselves to be occupant on 02.10.1959 when the Code, 1959 came into force. The respondent-company acquired the land from the-then Bhopal State and therefore according to respondent No.1, he was an occupant, became bhumiswami on 02.10.1959 when Code, 1959 came into force. As per respondent No.1, they have been in possession and occupying the land since 1943 and that when there was no industry in the Bhopal State, the Nawab of Bhopal and his Industries Department persuaded industrialists to establish industries in Bhopal with a promise of free land and other incentives and thereafter number of industries established by the Industrial Houses from other part of the India and those industries, according to respondent No.1, are now enjoying all the ownership rights. The respondent’s industry is also established in 1943. In the erstwhile princely state of Bhopal, all lands were owned by the ruler and vacant land situated within the municipal area of Bhopal city also belonged to State and was under