MEHARBAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 31.3.87 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in Appeal Case No. 1/79-80, order dated 28.9.87 passed by Commissioner, Bhopal in Case No. 278/86-87 and order dated 28.5.90, passed in revision case No. 46-111/87 by Member, Board of Revenue.

(2.) THE facts in nutshell are that petitioner's predecessor in title one Bhawani Singh made an application to the Tahsildar under section 109-110 read with section 190 of M.P. Land Revenue Code for conferral of Bhumiswami rights and mutation of his name, inter alia pleading that land admeasuring 6.32 acres of Khasra No. 61 of Village Hingnasir did belong to Mahant Ramswaroop in his personal rights and as the lease granted in favour of said Bhawanisingh was contravening the provisions of section 168 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, said Bhawami Singh acquired rights of occupancy tenant and consequently rights of Bhumiswami have been conferred upon him under section 190 of M.P. Land Revenue Code. The Tahsildar granted the application. Being aggrieved by the said order, Mahant Ramswaroop preferred an appeal to the SDO who by his order dated 31.7.80 in appeal case No. 1/79-80 allowed the appeal and rejected Bhawanisingh's application. The said Bhawanisingh filed a second appeal before the Addl. Commissioner, Bhopal who by his order dated 8.4.83 in case No. 23/79-80 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Officer. After the remand, matter was re-registered at its original number and after hearing the parties, the learned SDO again allowed the appeal, and set aside the order passed by Tahsildar. An appeal against said order was dismissed by the Commissioner and as the revision stood dismissed, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) SHRI Agarwal, learned counsel for State on the other hand, submits that reliance on P-11 is misconstrued because P-11 is of the year 1964 while from the orders passed by the authorities, it clearly appears that land of village Hingnasir were included in the trust in the year 1976. He submits that in view of the protection available to a public trust under clause (viii) of sub-section (2) of section 168 of the Code, no rights would accrue in favour of the petitioner. It is to be noted that after death of Bhawanisingh, petitioner filed the revision before the Board of Revenue and petition before this Court, inter alia pleading that Bhawanisingh had executed a Will in his favour. I have heard the parties at. length.