Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the Board of Revenue has erred in dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the revenue authority cannot decide the question of title and same is vested only with the civil Court. He further argues that as per Section 168 of MPLRC, it is not necessary to produce in writing the lease agreement. It may be proved that the land has been leased out by Bhumiswami to some other persons for a consideration of a price paid or promised. In the present case, admittedly, the lease agreement was executed by respondent No.1 although it was not executed in any stamp paper, therefore, the learned Board of Revenue wrongly held that the lease agreement has not been executed on stamp paper. He further submits that the Board of Revenue has erred in holding that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to held the petitioner as Bhumiswami of the land in question on the basis of the provision of Sections 169 and 190 of the MPLRC. He submits that as per the Section 257(o) of MPLRC, the conferral of Bhumiswami right is exclusively vested with the Revenue Court. The occupancy tenant right accrued to the petitioner under Section 169(a) of the MPLRC and Bhumiswami right acquired under Section 190 of the MPLRC. The learned Board of Revenue wrongly held that the revenue Court has no jurisdiction to decide the application under Sections 168 & 169 of the MPLRC or to confer the right of Bhumiswami to the petitioner under Section 190 of the MPLRC. For the said purpose, he relied on a judgment passed in the case of Pushpalata (Smt.) vs. S mt. Mishri Bai and others, 2013, RN, page 87.

5. In Sections 186 & 190 of MPLRC, there is a separate scheme for Bhumiswami right and declaration relating to Bhumiswami, but when there is specific dispute regarding the title, then the same can be decided by the Civil Court not by the authority. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the respondents supports the order passed by the Board of Revenue. He further relied on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case Rohini Prasad and others vs. Kasturvhand and another, AIR 2000 SC 1283 (2000 RN 141). as well as the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Narayan Prasad and another vs. Tulsidar and another, 2002 RN 306.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Section 190 of the MPLRC provides for conferral of bhumiswami rights on occupancy tenants. According, to this Section, where a bhumiswami whose land is held by an occupancy tenant belonging to any of the categories specified in sub-section (1) of Section 185. He can file an application under this Section for claiming him as Bhumiswami right on him.

7. In the present case, the petitioner has filed an application for mutation under Sections 109 & 110 of MPLRC. While deciding the said application for mutation, the Tahsildar has also declared him as Bhumiswami. While deciding the application under Sections 109 & 110, the Tahsildar could not have decided the right of the parties. In the present case, there is a serious dispute about ownership of the disputed property and, therefore, only the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the title of the property. The powers under Sections 168, 169, 185 & 190 of the MPLRC is vested only with the Civil Court and not with the Revenue authority.