IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA ON THE

18th OF JULY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 10014 of 2011 SMT. URMILA DEVI AGNIHOTRI AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Shailendra Verma – Advocate with Shri Prakhar Tiwari – Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Mohan Sausarkar – Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

O R D E R

This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief(s):-

i. To set aside the order dated 08.03.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 and affirm an order dated 15.03.2004 passed by S.D.O.

ii. To call for the entire record pertaining to the matter.

iii. To grant any other relief deemed fit in the circumstances.

2. It is not out of place to mention here that the original petitioner Chunkaman has expired and this petition is being prosecuted by his legal representatives.

3. It is the case of petitioner that petitioner was having possession over a part of khasra Nos.162 & 197 situated at village Umari since the period of Pawaidar and accordingly, his name was recorded in column No.12 of the revenue records. It is submitted that prior to coming into force of M.P.L.R. Code, valid title of the said land was with the Pawaidar which means a holder of a Pawai or of a share in a Pawai, includes the holder of sub Pawai or of a share in a sub Pawai, in direct relations with the Darbar. Since the title of land in question was with the Pawaidar, therefore all rights were vested in it. During his tenure, Pawaidar handed over possession to the petitioner through Pat and accordingly, petitioner became the Gairhaqdar tenant as defined under Section 40 of Tenancy Code, 1935. Section 57 of Tenancy Code, 1935 provided that Gairhaqdar tenant can be recorded as a Pattedar tenant and was entitled to obtain Patta if he was agreeable to pay rent determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 83. Although petitioner had become the owner of said land, but in revenue record, his name was recorded in Kaifiyat Column No.12, therefore he preferred an application under Section 57(2) of M.P.L.R. Code before Sub- Divisional Officer. Public notice was issued but no objections were raised and after recording the evidence of petitioner and one Shiv Prasad, the matter was fixed for order on 15/03/2004.

4. It is the case of petitioner that looking to the controversy involved in the matter, SDO had also called report from Sarpanch of concerned Gram Panchayat. In response to the said query, Sarpanch had informed that petitioner is in possession of the land since last 30 years and therefore, area should be declared as Abadi land in favour of the petitioner. A proposal No.15 was also passed by Gram Sabha on 14/04/1997. In the said letter, it was clearly mentioned that the area is recorded as burial ground but there is no such burial ground and entire

4.14 acres of land should be declared as Abadi land.

5. The SDO by order dated 15/03/2004 allowed the application and bhumiswami rights were conferred on the petitioner in respect of 2 acres of land forming part of khasra Nos.162 & 197.

6. The order of SDO was challenged by respondent No.2 before Additional Collector, District Satna, who set aside the order of SDO by order dated 26/12/2005.

7. Being aggrieved by said order, petitioner preferred an Appeal before Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division Rewa, who by order dated 22/08/2006 had set aside the order passed by Additional Collector, Satna and affirmed the order passed by SDO. However by impugned order, Board of Revenue has set aside the order passed by Additional Commissioner as well as SDO and has rejected the application filed by petitioner under Section 57(2) of M.P.L.R. Code.

8. Challenging the order passed by Board of Revenue, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner was in possession of land on 01/10/1959 i.e. the date on which M.P.L.R. Code came into force. It is submitted that petitioner w