Abhay M. Naik, J.
1. Short facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff/appellant instituted a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction with allegations that the land comprised in Survey No. 903 in area 0.073 hectare and Survey No. 904 in area 0.721 hectare, situated in Village Aron belonged to the State of Madhya Pradesh. It was granted to Gram Panchayat Aron in the year 1965 for plantation. Gram Panchayat occupied the said land by performing plantation. Adjacent to it, other land comprised in Survey No. 905, 906, 907 and 909 is situated which belongs to defendant/respondent Nos. 1 to 5. On formation of Nagar Palika Aron and thereafter of Nagar Panchayat, Aron, land belonging to Gram Panchayat, Aron stood vested in the plaintiff. It is further alleged that a change was made in the field map by the Revenue Inspector, Aron on 3-12-1994 on account of order dated 11-11-1994 passed by Additional Collector in Case No. 20-A/74-73:74 and of Tehsildar Aron dated 1-12-1994 bearing No. Q/Re/1/94. Change was made in the map of Samwat 2014 (corresponding year 1957-58) after a period of 34 years which is contrary to law.
2. Plaintiff claimed for the relief that the change made in the settlement map and current map by which in place of survey No. 904, survey No. 905 was mentioned and in place of survey No. 905, survey No. 904 was mentioned, is ineffective and non-binding on the plaintiff and that no interference may be made into the possession of the plaintiff over the land which he holds as survey No. 904 (though it is shown as survey No. 905 in the map).
3. Defendant/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 submitted their written statement and counter-claim, refuting thereby claim of the plaintiff. They inter alia contended that Champalal, predecessor of defendant/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 had purchased the disputed land comprised in survey No. 905 in area 0.606 hectare from Aisauddin vide registered sale deed dated 1-1-1968 and obtained possession of the same. There occurred an error on the part of Settlement Officer, who had mentioned survey No. 904 in place of survey No. 905 in the settlement year of 2013. Similarly survey No. 905 was shown in place of survey No. 904. Champalal on coming to know about this mistake made an application for correction of map which was registered as case No. 20-A/74-73:74. Upon the said application, Tehsildar Aron made an enquiry. Contention of Champalal was thereafter accepted by Collector vide order dated 30-8-1974. Order was made for necessary corrections. Gram Panchayat was party in the said case and objections preferred by Gram Panchayat were rejected. Nagar Palika Parishad, Aron being successor of Gram Panchayat, Aron accepted the order of the Collector and submitted an application for mutation pursuant thereto. Thus, the plaintiffs predecessor was well aware of said order dated 30-8-1974 which was not challenged during the prescribed period. Thus, said order is binding on the plaintiff and the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that the defendants are recorded Bhoomiswami and occupier of the land comprised in survey No. 905, which was duly purchased by the defendant/respondent Nos. 1 to 5. It was prayed through counter claim that the defendant/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 be declared Bhoomiswami and occupier of survey No. 905. This apart, it was specifically stated in the written statement that map having been changed under the order of Revenue Officer, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
4. Written statement to counter claim was also submitted by the plaintiff, refuting thereby the allegations of the defendant.
5. Learned Trial Judge after hearing the arguments on preliminary issue Nos. 5, 6 and 10, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 3-11-01, holding that the suit of plaintiff was not maintainable. Aggrieved by it, an appeal was preferred unsuccessfully. Thereafter, the present appeal is preferred, which has been admitted and heard on the following substantial question of law:
Whether the Courts below have acted illegally in holding that the suit was not tenable in view of Section 257(f) M.P. Land Revenue Code?
6. Shri S.K. Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant, Shri K.N. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Shri V.S. Chaturvedi, learned Government Advocate made their respective submissions which have been considered in the light of material available on record.
7. It is contended by Shri S.K. Shrivastava, learned Counsel for appellant that the suit of plaintiff is maintainable and the Courts below have committed illegality in dismissing it as untenable. Learned Counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment.
8. From undisputed pleadings on record, it is clear that the plaintiff asserted its ownership and possession in respect of survey Nos. 903 and 904 whereas the defendant/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 asserted Bhoomiswami rights and possession in respect of survey Nos. 905, 906, 907 and 909. According to private defendants, survey No. 904 was wrongly shown in place of survey No. 905 in the map of settlement which was prepared in Samwat 2013. Vice versa was also shown meaning thereby survey No. 905 was shown in place of survey No. 904. This was objected to by Champalal by submitting an application which was registered as case No. 20-A/74-73:74 before the Collector Guna. Tehsildar Aron made an enquiry and mistake was found to have occurred which was directed to be rectified. Gram Panchayat, Aron which was predecessor of the plaintiff/appellant submitted its objections which were duly rejected and map was rectified. Section 107 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 provides for field map which runs as fallows:
107. Field map.-- (1) There shall be prepared a map showing the boundaries of survey numbers or plot numbers and waste lands called the field map for every village except when otherwise directed by the State Government.
(2) There may be prepared for the abadi of each village a map showing the area occupied by private holders and the area not so occupied and such other particulars as may be prescribed.
(3) If the State Government considers that in the case of any village it is necessary to show separately in the map prepared under Sub-section (2) the plots occupied by private holders, it may direct the Collector to get the map so prepared or revised.
(4) If any Gram Panchayat passes a resolution that a map of the village abadi should be prepared showing separately the plots occupied by private holders and is willing to contributed to the cost of survey operations in such proportion as may be prescribed, the State Government may undertake the preparation of such map.
(5) Such map shall be prepared or revised, as the case may be, by the Settlement Officer at revenue survey and by the Collector at all other times and in all other circumstances.
9. Sub-section (5) (supra), confers jurisdiction on the Settlement Officer and the Collector as the case may be to prepare or revise the map. Accordingly, Collector, Guna is not found to have acted beyond jurisdiction in directing for rectification of the mistake by making corrections vide his order. Since power to prepare or revise the map is vested in the Settlement Officer or Collector as the case may be, it alone has a power/jurisdiction to decide the objection and no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to nullify the order made in exercise of power under Section 107 of M.P. Land Revenue Code. Section 257 of M.P. Land Revenue Code excludes the jurisdiction of Civil Court in such matter because Revenue Officers named in Section 107 alone are competent to take action in respect of correction in the revenue map. In view of the pleadings, it is clear that the plaintiff has sought relief contrary to the existing revenue record and has challenged the order effecting thereby correction in the map which was made in exercise of exclusive power by virtue of Sub-section (5) of Section 107 of M.P. Land Revenue Code. This being so, the suit is held rightly as not maintainable. I may successfully derive strength on this point from Apex Court decision in the case of Devinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. : (2006) 5 SCC 720, and this Court decision in the case of Shivnath Prasad Shrivastava and Ors. v. Board of Revenue of M.P., Gwalior and Ors. : 2002 (2) M.P.H.T. 459. Accordingly, substantial question of law is decided against the appellant. The appeal is found to have no substance and the same is hereby dismissed, however, without order as to costs.
10. Further, it is made clear that the plaintiff/appellant would be at liberty to take other appropriate legal recourse as observed by the Lower Appellate Court in Para 17 of the impugned judgment.