Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5665
1 SA-327-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 24 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
SECOND APPEAL No. 327 of 2016
AKRAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Satish Jain - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Anshul Rajpurohit - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against concurrent findings of facts recorded by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.02.2014 passed in Civil Suit No. 113A/2011 and affirmed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.02.2016 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 14A/2015.
2. The appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and that the order dated 01.08.2011 passed by the Collector Neemuch be declared as null & void with respect to the 0.40 hectare of land out of the 8.66 hectare land of Survey No. 98 in village Jamunyakala, District Neemuch.
3. The appellants/plaintiffs in their plaint averred that late Gulam Moinuddin - father of the appellants/plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 and husband of appellant/plaintiff No. 5 was in possession of the above said suit property for the last 30 years. He improved the land by leveling and removing stubs, etc. thus, making it cultivable. He thereafter started cultivating the land and continued to do so. He died in the year 2003 and since then, the plaintiffs are in peaceful Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 2/28/2026 5:47:37 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5665 2 SA-327-2016 possession of the suit land.
4. The plaintiffs further averred that they had filed an application before the Naib Tehsildar, Neemuch for settlement of the suit land in their favour. The Naib Tehsildar, after following the due process, passed order dated 02.03.2006 whereby the land was settled in favour of the plaintiffs pursuant to which the amount of premium was also deposited by them. However, there were some complaints against the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar thus, the Collector, Neemuch in Suo Motu Revision set aside the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar vide its order dated 01.08.2011 which occasioned filing of civil suit before the trial Court. It was stated in the plaint that the order passed by the Collector is not binding upon the appellants/plaintiffs for the reason that the order passed on 01.08.2011 by the Collector, Neemuch was barred by time. Thus, on the basis of said order, the respondent/State has no right to interfere with the peaceful possession of the appellants/plaintiffs. The defendant/State filed its written statement thereby denying the title of the plaintiffs. The trial Court based on rival pleadings framed as many as six issues and all of them were decided against the appellants/plaintiffs. The trial Court found that the order passed by the Collector on 01.08.2011 setting aside the order of settlement in favour of the plaintiffs has become final in absence of any challenge to the same by the plaintiffs before the higher forum under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (MPLRC) and has also found that the appellants/plaintiffs were not able to prove their adverse possession. As such, the suit was dismissed.
5. The appellants, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 14A/2015 which was dismissed by the appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 17.12.2016 thereby concurring with the findings of facts recorded by the trial Court on all counts, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 2/28/2026 5:47:37 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5665 3 SA-327-2016 hence this appeal before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Naib Tehsildar in the proceedings of settlement passed an order dated 15.07.2004. The legal heirs of Moinuddin were taken on record. Whereafter on 27.12.2005, the fact of death of Rodmal was recorded. He submits that Rodmal was the person in whose favour an area of 0.40 hectare was granted on patta (lease). However he died and there was no heirs of Rodmal. The fact is that even after grant of patta to Rodmal and even before that, it was father of the plaintiffs namely Gulam Moinuddin who was cultivating the said land. He submits that ultimately Exhibit P/18 order was passed by the concerned Tehsildar on 02.03.2006 whereby the land of Survey No. 98 admeasuring 0.42 hectare out of total land of 8.67 hectare was given to plaintiffs by deleting the name of Rodmal and directing for recording the name of plaintiffs. As such, the Naib Tehsildar, Neemuch has settled the said land in favour of plaintiffs. This order of Naib Tehsildar was subsequently subjected to suo motu revision in terms of Section 50 of the MPLRC by the Collector, Neemuch vide order dated 01.08.2011 and the same was set aside. It was directed that name of the plaintiffs be removed from revenue records with respect to the said land and the name of government be recorded. Learned counsel submits that this exercise of power by the Collector is illegal in view of the fact that the order was passed on 01.08.2011 whereas the earlier order was passed on 02.03.2006. As such, the stipulated period of 180 days from the date of knowledge had already elapsed when the proceedings were instituted by the Collector in the suo motu proceedings. Thus, the same was barred by time. Hence, the order of Collector (Exhibit P/20) has no existence being void ab initio . He further submits that the Collector recorded in the said order that the authority should have followed the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 2/28/2026 5:47:37 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5665 4 SA-327-2016 procedure of Section 177 of the MPLRC in case of death of the patta holder. However, the Collector completely ignored that the fact of death of earlier patta holder was recorded by the Naib Tehsildar in its order dated 02.03.2006 and thus, directed for deleting his name and the land was settled in favour of the appellants. He further submits that even if the order of settlement is ignored then also the appellants/plaintiffs have perfected their title based on adverse possession.
7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgments in case of Ranveer Singh (deceased by LRs) & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 SCC OnLine MP 325; Sharda Vihar Vikas Samiti vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2012 SCC OnLine MP 7474; Prahalad vs. State of M.P, 2008(2) MPLJ 589 for the proposition that even if the title is not found still in view of settled possession of appellant/plaintiffs they cannot be evicted without following due process of law. He further relied on the judgment in case of Punit Rai vs. Dinesh Choudhary, 2003 Supreme (MP) 927 for the proposition that it was onus on the State to demonstrate that when they came to know about the order dated 02.03.2006 (Exhibit P/18) passed by the Naib Tehsildar and that the suo motu revision was instituted by the Collector within the prescribed period of limitation. He further relied on the judgment of this Court in case of Bhuvaneshwar Prasad vs. State of M.P. & Ors., 2009(1) MPLJ 434 for the proposition that as the appellants have admitted before the trial Court that the order passed by the Collector was barred by limitation, the onus was on the defendant/State to rebut the same which has not been discharged, thus the evidence of the plaintiffs should have been accepted and for the same proposition, he further relied on the judgment in case of Pandru & Others vs. Dharam Singh & Others, 2010(3) MPLJ 477 . He further relied on the judgment in case of Rajendra Prasad Tiwari vs. State of M.P. & Others, ILR (2013) MP 2131 for the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 2/28/2026 5:47:37 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5665 5 SA-327-2016 proposition of limitation for taking the order of the Tehsildar for suo motu revision.
8. He further relied on the order in case of Indar Singh and Others vs. State of M.P., 2008 SCC(MP) 750 for the proposition that amount allotted to adiwasis/applicants cannot be declared government land for the errors committed by the government officials. He submits that even if it is accepted that Naib Tehsildar erred in following the procedure under Section 177 of the MPLRC, still for his mistake the appellants cannot be made to suffer. For the proposition of limitation, learned counsel has further relied on the judgment Brij Nandan Prasad Tiwari vs. State of M.P. & Others, 2004(1) MPLJ 325 and Ajay Singh vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2008 SC (MP) 1043 .
9. On the strength of the above facts and arguments, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appeal involves substantial questions of law thus, deserves to be admitted for hearing and for the same reasons, he submits that the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 be also allowed and interim relief be made absolute.
10. Opposing the prayer for interim relief and admission, learned counsel for the State submits that the suo motu revision was instituted by the Collector within time for the reason that the name of the plaintiffs or their father/husband was not recorded in the revenue records pursuant to the order dated 02.03.2006 (Exhibit P/18) and it was only on an enquiry conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer that this fact came to the knowledge of the Collector and thus, the order was passed within limitation. He further submits that in any case, the Naib Tehsildar was not having jurisdiction to grant patta and the plaintiffs or their predecessor were not landless persons which fact has been admitted by their witness Bansilal (PW-2). He further submits that Survey No. 98 is a huge parcel Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 2/28/2026 5:47:37 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5665 6 SA-327-2016 of land having total 8.66 hectares out of which the plaintiffs have claimed title on an area of 0.40 hectares. However, a perusal of the plaint would show that there is complete absence of four boundaries of the suit property. He submits that the identity of the land itself is not clear. He thus submits that no interim relief deserves to be granted to the appellants.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission as well as on temporary injunction.
12. The claim of the appellants is based on two grounds mainly: i) the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar (Exhibit P/18) was in due exercise of the jurisdiction and its quashment by Exhibit P/20 by the Collector in suo motu revision was beyond authority of law and, ii) in view of continuous possession for 30 years the appellants/plaintiffs have perfected their title over the suit property under the principles of adverse possession. The first submission of learned counsel regarding the suo motu revision being barred by time has to be considered in view of the pleadings and evidence led by the plaintiffs before the trial Court for proving this. A perusal of the plaint would show that in para 5 of the plaint, the plaintiffs themselves have averred that the name of plaintiffs was not recorded though, after settlement of the suit land in their favour by the Naib Tehsildar, Neemuch they are in possession of the same. However, their names were not recorded in the revenue records by the concerned revenue officer but it will not affect their title and possession. It is thus clear that even after settlement of land in their favour by the Naib Tehsildar vide order dated 02.03.2006 (Exhibit P/18) their name was never recorded in the revenue record for the said land. This fact becomes significant for the reason that the appellants/plaintiffs are asserting knowledge of the order of settlement to the revisional authority. Now this was Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 2/28/2026 5:47:37 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5665 7 SA-327-2016 explained by the respondent/State in Exhibit P/20 itself which is an order passed in suo motu revision by the Collector. The Collector has recorded in the said order that on complaints, an enquiry was conducted by the Commissioner, Ujjain Division and in the said enquiry, it was found that the order of settlement is not in accordance with law and pursuant to that enquiry a direction was given and resultantly the matter was taken up in suo motu revision which ultimately culminated in the order dated 01.08.2011 whereby the settlement in favour of the appellants was set aside. It was further recorded by the Collector that the allotment was done during the ban period as the State Government vide order dated 21.01.2003 has banned allotment of government land. However, by ignoring this, the order of settlement was passed. It was for the appellants/plaintiffs to challenge the said order however, they did not do the same thus, the order of Collector attained finality. This order of Collector was then tried to be disputed in the present proceedings on the ground of being barred by limitation. However, in the considered view of this Court, the initial burden was on the plaintiffs to discharge the same by bringing on record cogent material to establish that the order passed by the Collector was beyond limitation.
13. Irrespective of this fact, the evidence of the witnesses examined by the appellants/plaintiffs are also very significant. A perusal of the statement given by Abrar (PW-1) would show that he admitted in paragraphs No. 14 to 26 that the area of survey number 98 is 8.66 hectares which comes around 43 bighas. It was further admitted that he has not mentioned four boundaries of the land for which the suit was filed. It was also admitted that even in the application (Exhibit P/17) filed for settlement, the four boundaries of the land are not mentioned and it was further admitted in paragraph No. 26 that Rodmal was their bataidar (person cultivating land on hire). He also admitted that there is no document on record to Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 2/28/2026 5:47:37 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5665 8 SA-327-2016 show that patta granted to Rodmal was cancelled.
14. A perusal of the statement of Bansilal (PW-2) would show that he admitted in paragraph No. 11 of his cross-examination that the plaintiffs have around 12 bighas of land in the same village. Thus, it was found that the appellant was not entitled for grant of land on patta under the provisions of the beneficial legislation of allotment of land on patta to landless persons. The trial Court in its judgment has referred to these facts in paragraph No. 17 and the appellate Court has confirmed the same again in paragraph No. 17 of its judgment. In view of the above facts, this Court is of the considered view that the plea of limitation set up by the plaintiffs was not substantiated. The fact that the name of the plaintiffs were not recorded in the revenue record is also suggestive of the fact that the settlement was tried to be concealed from the higher authorities of the revenue department otherwise there was no reason for not filing an application in promptitude pursuant to order of settlement for recording their names in the revenue record. Once the plaintiffs pleaded in paragraphs No.5 that their name is not recorded in the revenue records pursuant to order of settlement it was burden upon them to even prima facie demonstrate that this order of settlement came into knowledge of the revisional authority and then only onus would have shifted upon the respondent/State to demonstrate that the suo motu revision was instituted within time. In absence of the same, inference cannot be drawn against the respondent/State and for this reason, the reliance as placed by the learned counsel on the judgment in case of Punit Rai and Bhuvaneshwar Prasad (supra) would not come to their rescue. As regards the judgment in case of Ranveer Singh (supra) and Sharda Vihar Vikas Samiti (supra), the ratio as laid down by the Full Bench of this Court is clear in its mandate. It says that power of suo motu revision must be exercised within 180 days from the date of coming to knowledge of illegality. In Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 2/28/2026 5:47:37 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5665 9 SA-327-2016 the present case, the plaintiffs/appellants have completely failed to even indicate the date of knowledge. As such, the said judgments will also not come to their rescue.
15. As regards the issue of adverse possession, this Court is of the considered view that this infact was not even pleaded by the respondents. The plea of adverse possession is a plea which has no equitable consideration as it defeats the rights of a valid owner and title holder of the property. Thus, there are no equitable considerations. The plaintiffs/appellants are under an onerous burden to not only plead but also to prove that they have a hostile continuous possession of the suit property which has not even been pleaded by the plaintiffs/appellants let alone proved. In view of the above analysis, this Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are in conformity with the evidence available on record and there is no perversity in the same.
16. Hence, no substantial question of law is involved in the present case. Thus, the appeal stands dismissed.
Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE vidya Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 2/28/2026 5:47:37 PM