ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 22.10.2012 (Annexure P/10) passed by Board of Revenue, Gwalior Madhya Pradesh, whereby a revision filed by the respondent has been allowed and order of Commissioner dated 17.03.2009 (Annexure P/9) has been set aside.

2. The name of Bhagwatibai Wd/o Banshinath - petitioner was recorded as owner of the agriculture land of various (old) Survey Nos.585/1, 1037/1, 1037/2, 1060, 1068, 1074, 1089, 1090, 1075, 1076, 1077, 1085, 1086, 1078/1, 1084/1, 1087, 1088 and 1092, total area 31.03 Hectares, Patwari Halka No.50, Village Lasur, Tehsil Jawad, District Neemuch (M.P.) [New Survey Nos.1060, 1074, 1089, 1090, 1075, 1076, 1077, 1087/1, 1085, 1086, 1084/1, 1087, 1088, 1092 and 1026 total area 3,806 hectare situated at village Lasur, Tehsil Jawad, District Neemuch] being the widow of Banshinath.

3. The respondent disputed the aforesaid mutation before the Tehsildar by filing an application for review under Section 51 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (herein after referred to as the Revenue Code) that she is being a daughter of Ramnathji, having equal share with Banshinath, therefore, her name is also liable to be recorded in the revenue records, as co-owner. The said application was filed on 09.01.2008.

4. For allowing this application, the earlier order of mutation dated 26.02.1988 was liable to be reviewed, therefore, the Tehsildar sought permission, as required under Section 51 (1) (i) of the Revenue Code from the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue). Initially, the SDO turned down the request and directed the Tehsildar to reconsider the application and sent back again along with necessary documents. However, there is no such communication made by the Tehsildar on record, but the SDO granted the permission for review and accordingly, the Tehsildar passed an order which travelled up to the Board of Revenue, after filing an appeal and revision; and finally vide order dated 22.10.2012, the Board of Revenue passed an order in favour of the respondent.

granting permission for review, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. The application for review is time barred; and if the respondent is claiming share / title in the ancestral properties, then she was required to approach the Civil Court.

6. It is further submitted that the property was self earned property of husband of the petitioner and it was not an ancestral property, therefore, in which Mangibai - respondent has no share.

7. Undisputedly, respondent - Mangibai is the daughter of Ramnathji and she gave description of all the ancestral properties in para 3 of the application in which being a daughter, she had an equal share, but after the death of Ramnathji, name of Banshinath was wrongly mutated and after the death of mother and Banshinath, the names of all the legal heirs were liable to be mutated in the revenue records.

8. It is further submitted that for grant of permission to review, no opportunity of hearing is required at this stage, however, before reviewing the order, an opportunity was given to the petitioner and thereafter the order was reviewed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal and revision, therefore, now this ground is not available.

9. As per the controversy between the parties, there is only one admitted fact which is that Mangibai and Banshinath are the real sister and brother, but the disputed question of fact is that whether the several lands declared in para 3 of the application is an ancestral property or self earned property of late Banshinath. If it is an ancestral land, then only the respondent might have some share in it, as per the law prevailing at that time, but if it is a self earned property, then she will have to establish the right before Civil Court. Mutation entries are liable to be corrected or modified only on the basis of admitted facts. When there i