Col. Indra Bahadur Singh Lrs.Smt. Ujjwala Singh Wd/O Col. Indra Bahadur Singh Aged About 72 Years R/ vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84967
1 WP-11059-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
rd
ON THE 23 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 11059 of 2013
CNR No.: MPHC010284012013
COL. INDRA BAHADUR SINGH LRS.SMT. UJJWALA SINGH WD/O
COL. INDRA BAHADUR SINGH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/ AND
OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Aishwariya
Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Verma, Senior Advocate along with Shri Neeraj Shrivastava
- Advocate for the respondent Nos.5 to 8.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - G.A. for the respondents/State.
ORDER
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed
feeling aggrieved by Order dated 10.5.2012 passed in Case
No.1932/896/2012/Seven/2-A by the Additional Secretary, Department of
Revenue, Government of M.P. (Annexure P/3), whereby revision petition
assailing the order of Collector, Panna dated 3.3.2011 (Annexure P/2) was
rejected in view of Amendment in Section 57 of M.P. Land Revenue Code,
1959. The petitioner has requested for the following reliefs:-
"I. That, the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to summon the entire records
pertains to the grievance of the petitioner particularly proceeding of Case No.2/B-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIDHI DAVE
Signing time: 24-10-
2026 15:46:53

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84967
2 WP-11059-2013
121/67-68 which allegedly leads to order dated 22-11-1967 by then Tahsildar and
records of proceedings pertains to alienation of land by Revenue Department to
Industry Department by order dated 01-02-1980 of Collector as discussed in para-3 of
P/1.
II. It is further prayed that the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this
writ petition and direction may kindly be given to all concerned revenue authorities
to enter the name of the petitioner in the Revenue Records in respect of land area
measuring 1.20 hectare of Khasra No.2409 of Beni Sagar, District Panna, being his
ancestral property and owner thereof, in the ends of justice and to restore the majesty
and glory of the Rule of Law.
III. That, consequent upon correct entries and petitioner's name therein Revenue
Records concerned authority may kindly be directed to ensure vacant possession of
the land to be handed over to the petitioner.
IV. Any other order or direction whichever this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper
may kindly be passed looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, including
cost of the litigation."
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the facts and grounds

pleaded in the petition, submits that Colonel Indra Bahadur Singh had filed
an application under Section 57 (2) of M.P. Land revenue Code claiming to
be the title holder of land comprised in Survey No.2409 area 1.20 acres at
Village Panna Khas. This land was allotted to his predecessor-in-interest.
Colonel Jung Bahadur Singh by erstwhile Panna Riyasat. Colonel Jung
Bahadur Singh was recorded as Bhoomiswami over the land since 1954-55.
Thereafter, Padam Bahadur Singh was recorded as Bhoomiswami over the
land in dispute, but later without affording any opportunity of hearing, the
land was erroneously recorded under the title of Government of Madhya
Pradesh and allotted to the Department of Industries. The applicant continues
to be in possession of land in dispute. Therefore, revenue records be
corrected. The Sub Divisional Officer, Panna rejected the application for
correction of revenue records and directed that entire land comprised in
Survey No.2409 be recorded under title of the Government of Madhya
Pradesh. The petitioner assailed the validity of this order before the
Collector, Panna by filing an appeal under Section 44 of M.P. Land Revenue
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIDHI DAVE
Signing time: 24-10-
2026 15:46:53

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84967
3 WP-11059-2013
Code. The Collector, Panna rejected the appeal vide impugned order dated

3.3.2011 (Annexure P/2) reiterating the findings of Sub Divisional Officer.
Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Government of M.P. assailing the
order of the Collector, Panna and the Sub Divisional Officer, Panna by filing
a revision petition. The Additional secretary, Department of Revenue,
Government of M.P. rejected the revision petition as not maintainable, in
view of the amendment in Section 57 of M.P. Land Revenue Code. Learned
Counsel contends that Section 57 of M.P. Land Revenue Code was amended
vide Amendment Act of 2011 with effect from 30.12.2011. Thus, the
application under Section 57 (2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code filed in the
year 2006 was maintainable before the Sub Divisional Officer. The
Additional Secretary committed apparent error in rejecting the revision
petition without considering the merits of the claim. The impugned order be
set aside.
Learned Counsel lastly, submits that the petitioner does not wish to pursue
other reliefs and requests that the matter be remitted to the Additional
Secretary for considering the claim of the petitioner on merits of available
record.
3 . Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents/State submits that the
dispute raised in the application under Section 57(2) of M.P. Land Revenue
Code relates to correction of record. Therefore, it was not maintainable
before the Sub Divisional Officer. The petitioner should have applied to
Tehsildar for correction of records. The petition is meritless.
4. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8 contends that they the
purchasers from the original petitioner Indra Bahadur Singh regarding part of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIDHI DAVE
Signing time: 24-10-
2026 15:46:53

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84967
4 WP-11059-2013
land comprised in Survey No.2409/2, which was duly recorded in the name

of Jung Bahadur Singh and his successors-in-title, Padam Bahadur Singh and
Indra Bahadur Singh. The respondents had purchased the part of land
through registered sale-deeds and after mutation in revenue records had
constructed their houses. They continue to be in peaceful possession over the
purchased land. Therefore, the order of Sub Divisional Officer dated
9.12.2009 (Annexure P/1) and the order of Collector, Panna dated 3.3.2011
(Annexure P/2) are not binding on them. They were not afforded any
opportunity of hearing by the Sub Divisional Officer or the Collector. Their
interest needs to be protected.
5. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
6. The pre-amended provision of Section 57 M. P. Land Revenue Code,
1959 reads as under:-
"57. State ownership in all lands.— (1) All lands belong to the State Government and
it is hereby declared that all such lands, including standing and flowing water, mines,
quarries, minerals and forests reserved or not, and all rights in the sub-soil of any
land are the property of the State Government :
Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect any rights of any
person subsisting at the coming into force of this Code in any such property.
(2) Where a dispute arises between the State Government and any person in respect
of any right under sub-section (1) such dispute shall be decided by the Collector.
(3) Any person aggrieved by any order passed under sub section (2) may institute a
civil suit to contest the validity of the order within a period of one year from the date
of such order.
(4) Where a civil suit has been instituted under sub section (3) against nay order, such
order shall not be subject to appeal or revision."
7. The Sub-section 2 of Section 57 was deleted by M.P. Land Revenue
Code (Amendment) Act, 2018 with effect from 25.9.2018 and Sub-section
(3) of Section 57 was deleted by M.P. Land Revenue Code (Amendment)
Act, 2011 with effect from 30.12.2011. Thus, in year 2006, when Colonel
Indra Bahadur Singh approached the Sub Divisional Officer with his claim to
Bhoomiswami title over the disputed Survey No.2409, area 1.20 acres, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIDHI DAVE
Signing time: 24-10-
2026 15:46:53

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84967
5 WP-11059-2013
application was maintainable before the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub

Divisional Officer rejected the application and directed that entire area of
Survey No.2409 be recorded under the Bhoomiswami title of Government of
Madhya Pradesh. The Collector correctly entertained the appeal under
Section 44 of the Land Revenue Code, however, rejected the same
reiterating the findings of the Sub Divisional Officer.
8. This Court cannot indulge into a fact finding enquiry requiring evidence
and minute verification of revenue records in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the fact remains that
the Additional Secretary, Department of Revenue, committed manifest error
in rejecting the revision petition merely stating that in view of amendment
under Section 57 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, the application was not
maintainable before the Sub Divisional Officer and holding that the matter
has already been disposed of on merits by a competent revenue Officer
without considering the merits of claim of the petitioner as raised in revision
petition. The Order of Sub Divisional Officer is bereft of reasons for
rejecting the claim of revision-petitioner and it is against the expressed
provision of law,. Thus, the impugned order suffers from improper exercise
of jurisdiction, hence it is legally unsustainable.
9. Accordingly, the Order dated 10.5.2012 passed in Case
No.1932/896/2012/Seven/2-A by the Additional Secretary, Department of
Revenue, Government of M.P. (Annexure P/3) is set aside. The Additional
Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of M.P., shall reconsider the
petition filed by the petitioner, under the pre-amended provision of Section
57 M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and after affording opportunity of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIDHI DAVE
Signing time: 24-10-
2026 15:46:53

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:84967
6 WP-11059-2013
hearing to all concerned, pass a well reasoned order on merits of the petition,

in accordance with law, at the earliest preferably within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is clarified
that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of
the petitioner. Needless to say, Respondent Nos.5 to 8 be also afforded an
opportunity of hearing in the matter, as their interest would be directly
affected by any adverse outcome of the revision petition filed by the
petitioner.
11. With this direction, the petition stands disposed of.
C.c as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
nd

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIDHI DAVE
Signing time: 24-10-
2026 15:46:53