The appeal asserts limitations on revisional powers under the MP Land Revenue Code and confirms that the burden of proof lies with the appellants in civil disputes.

1. Heard on admission.

2. By way of instant writ appeal, the appellants have challenged the order dated 26.6.2013 passed by the Writ Court in WP No.7285/2013 filed by the appellants to quash the order dated 10.11.2010 (Annexure P - 1) passed by the Collector, Gwalior and also to quash the consequential order passed by the Tahsildar.

3. The brief facts of the case are that six pieces of land bearing Survey No.103 to 108, total area 1.421 hectares situated at Village Odpura Tahsil and District Gwalior were recorded in the name of Baba Balakdas (a lady priest). She executed a Will in the year 1951 in favour of Jeevanram S/o Pooranchand. Thereafter the land was mutated in the name of Jeevanram, Dr. Bhanwar Singh and the appellants respectively as successors. The Naib Tahsildar vide order dated 27.7.2010 passed an order of mutation in favour of the appellants. Thereafter a complaint was filed before the Collector and the Collector vide order dated 3.8.2010 set aside the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar and also the revenue entries recorded in Samvat 2007.

4. The Writ Court after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and documents filed before it, dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order.

5. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that there are documents in favour of the appellants and continuous entries were there in the name of the predecessors of the appellants established by several documents. The collector could not pass such order under its suo - motu powers of revision under S.50 of the MP Land Revenue Code after so many years. In this context, he has placed his reliance upon the order of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of " Ranveer Singh Vs. State of MP ", 2010 (4) MPLJ 178 , in which it is held that the revisionary authority can exercise suo - motu powers within 180 days from the date of coming into the knowledge to it that any particular illegality, impropriety or irregularity of the proceeding has been exercised by any officer subordinate to it.

6. It is further submitted that on the basis of S.346 of Kanoon Maal , the entries made in the year 1951 became absolute and could not be set aside. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has referred so many documents to show that the appellants have right over the aforesaid revenue property. It is also submitted that a civil suit of the present appellants is pending before the District Court against other persons, who challenged the title of the appellants.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State and the respondent No.2, who appeared in person have submitted that the Will was executed in favour of one Jeevanram S/o Pooranchand, whereas the land was recorded thereafter in the name of another Jeevanram whose father's name was not Pooranchand. The interpolations were done in the revenue entries. In some of the entries, it was shown that the name of father of Jeevanram was Pooranchand alias Balakdas, whereas Baba Balakdas was a lady priest, and therefore the name of father of Jeevanram could not be Balakdas. Lady Balakdas gave the property to Jeevanram being a disciple and not as a son of herself, and therefore the alleged mutations are nothing, but fake record prepared by the revenue authorities in connivance of the appellants etc., and therefore it is submitted that the order passed by the Collector was absolutely correct and the Writ Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition.

8. First of all, the limitation relating to suo - motu powers of the Collector is concerned, it would be proper to quote some portion of para 33 of the