Section 115 of MPLRC can only correct incorrect entries, not insert new entries of possession.

The private respondents applied to the Tehsildar under Sections 32 and 121 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 ("MPLRC"), seeking that the factum of their possession over the disputed property be recorded in the revenue records.

The Tehsildar allowed the application on 02/07/2002 (Annexure P/1) by invoking powers under Section 115 of the MPLRC.

The petitioner's appeal succeeded before the Sub-Divisional Officer ("SDO"), who, by order dated 31/01/2006 (Annexure P/2), set aside the Tehsildar's order, holding that Section 115 can be invoked only to correct an entry, not to insert a new entry.

The Commissioner allowed the respondents' appeal on 18/08/2011 (Annexure P/3), and the Board of Revenue dismissed the petitioner's revision by orders dated 02/12/2013 (Annexure P/4) and 07/01/2015 (Annexure P/5).

1. Whether Section 115 of the MPLRC, 1959 could be invoked to insert a new entry recording possession in the revenue records in the absence of any prayer to correct an existing incorrect entry.

2. Whether the Tehsildar could exercise inherent powers to pass an order directing something not provided for under the MPLRC, 1959.

The court primarily applied Section 115 of the MPLRC, 1959, holding that its scope is confined to the correction of incorrect entries and does not extend to the insertion of new entries in the revenue records.

It also applied the settled principle of statutory interpretation that inherent powers cannot be invoked to perform an act not authorised by the underlying statute—the express provisions of a Code delimit the authority of revenue officers.

The court examined the Tehsildar's order dated 02/07/2002 and found the invocation of Section 115 apparent from its concluding paragraph.

It reasoned that the application before the Tehsildar sought recording of the factum of possession—a fresh insertion—and contained no prayer for correction of any incorrect entry; therefore, such an application was not maintainable under Section 115.

The court held that the Tehsildar could not, "under the garb of exercising the inherent powers," issue a direction to do something not available under the Code of 1959.

By treating the defect as one of statutory competence rather than prejudice, the court implicitly rejected the respondents' contention that a non-prejudicial entry warranted no interference.

Consequently, the orders of the Tehsildar (02/07/2002, Annexure P/1), the Additional Commissioner, Rewa (18/08/2011, Annexure P/3), and the Board of Revenue (02/12/2013, Annexure P/4; 07/01/2015, Annexure P/5) were set aside as unsustainable, and the SDO's order dated 31/01/2006 (Annexure P/2) was affirmed.

The respondents were granted liberty to seek recourse before the civil court to claim their rights, including title over the property.