JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, J. 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Third Additional District Judge. Gwalior on 15.1.93 in C.A. No. 14-R/92 whereby the first appellate Court had affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court i.e. Third Civil Judge Class-I, Gwalior dated 21.10.92 in C.S. No. 153-A/92. The trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and the first appellate Court has confirmed the dismissal of the suit. 2. Plaintiff appellant's suit is for declaration that he is Bhumiswami of the suit land and injunction against the defendant state not to build any park on this land and not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is entitled to correction in the revenue record by removal of the name of P.W.D. 3. Allegations of the plaintiff are that he is Maurusi of the land in dispute from the time since before coming into force of M.P. Land Revenue & Tenancy Act, Samwat 2007 i.e. 15.8.1950. The land was lying uncultivated but was in possession of the plaintiff. It was urged that the name of the defendant i.e. P.W.D. finds mention in column 3 of the revenue record (Khasra), but they have no right to interfere with the Bhumiswami or possessory rights of the plaintiff and their intention to build a park on this land is illegal. 4. There were two defendants. First is the State of M.P. and second Mohammad Raza Khan. Mohammad Raza was alleged to be attempting to built or run a cycle stand on this land. 5. The State of M.P. remained ex parte in spite of service of summons before the trial Court and defendants No. 2 Mohammad Raza Khan simply said that he had collected the building material on this land. He does not know to whom this land belongs. 6. In evidence, the plaintiff-appellant had produced copies of Khasra of Survey No. 3091 which is the disputed land. First one is Ex. P-1. Ex. P-1 was copy of Khsara pertaining to Samwat 2007, i.e. April, 1950 to March, 1951. In this, in column of possession Laxman Rao son of Pandurang Rao is recorded as Pukhla Maurusi, while the ownership column is occupied by P.W.D. Such entry continued upto Samvat 2008 also vide Ex. P-2. In Samvat 2009 (Ex. P-3), there was change in the entry. In this, in column of possession Laxman Rao son of Pandurang Rao is recorded as Pukhla Maurusi, while the ownership column is occupied by P.W.D. Such entry continued upto Samvat 2008 also vide Ex. P-2. In Samvat 2009 (Ex. P-3), there was change in the entry. In the column of ownership, no name is recorded except the cross line but in the possessory column No. 5, name of P.W.D. is recorded as Pashorah No. 31", while the name of Laxman Rao, plaintiff is recorded as Pukhta Maurusi below the name of P.W.D. In the year Samvats 2007, 2008 and 2009, the land is recorded 'Kadim' to the extent of 2 Bighas 8 Biswas and that it has 'bungalow' also. In entries of Samvats 2010 to 2014 (in P 4) in the column of possession or tenant P.W.D. is recorded 'as before while the name of Laxman Rao is recorded as 'Pakka Krishak and land is recorded as 'Kadim' (2-13). This entry continued even in Khsara panchsala Samwats 2020 to 2024 (Ex. P-5). The land is continuing to be 'Padta Kadim'. Same entry had continued in Khasra for earlier two years i.e. Samwats 2014 to 2016 (Ex. P-6). Then in Khasra of Samwats 2026 to 2029 (Ex. P-7), name of the plaintiff is recorded as Kabjedar and Bhumiswami in the column of Kafiyat. In this column, Laxmano Rao along with his sons Vikram Bilasrao and Anil had been recorded, as if jointly holding possession. In this very period Samwats 2026 to 2029, it is mentioned that it is a "Nazul declared land". The area of land is given in Bighas as 2 Bigha 8 Biswas and also in hectares as 0.502 hectares. The land is continuously recorded as "Parti" during all these years, i.e. 2007 to 2034. Similar entries appear during the period Samwats 2031 to 2034 (Ex. P-8). However, in the Khasras of the periods 2037 to 2040, names of Laxman Rao. Vikram Singh, Vilasrao and Anil and sons of Laxman Rao are recorded as joint Bhumiswami. In column 3 pertaining to possessory right, wheat crops is recorded as produce of each of these years, Again in Khasra crops is recorded as prouce of each of these years. However, in the Khasras of the periods 2037 to 2040, names of Laxman Rao. Vikram Singh, Vilasrao and Anil and sons of Laxman Rao are recorded as joint Bhumiswami. In column 3 pertaining to possessory right, wheat crops is recorded as produce of each of these years, Again in Khasra crops is recorded as prouce of each of these years. Again in Khasra pertaining to Samwats 2041 to 2045, same entries continued in favour of plaintiff and his sons as Bhumiswamis in column 3, but land is again shown as 'Parti' during this period. 7. Counsel for the appellant argues that in Samwats 2007 and 2008, name of Laxman Rao was recorded as Pukhta Maurusi and so he continued in that capacity upto Samwat 2020. Thus when Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act came into force on 15th August 1959 the plaintiff became Pakka tenant, under the definition of Pakka tenant given in section 54 (vi) of that Act. This capacity continued till the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 came into force on 2.10.1959 i.e. Samwat 2016. Argument is that under section 158 of the above-said Code, the plaintiff became entitled to the right of Bhumiswami. Further contention is that change of entries subsequently is of no effect and does not take away the rights of the plaintiff as Bhumiswami and the State could not disturb those rights of the plaintiff as Bhumiswami and so he was entitled to be declared as Bhumiswami about this land irrespective of the fact whether the land continued to be cultivated or remained lying vacant (Padti). 8. Contention of the learned counsel for the respondent State is that this suit could not be filed before Civil Court under the provisions of section 57, Part-II of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, and section 257 of the same Code. He further urges that actual possession was not with the plaintiff, as he was not cultivating the land and there was a park and bunglow on this land and so the entry of Pukhta Maurusi is contradicted by the entry of existence of bungalow and park and also by the entry of Kadim Padti land. 9. He further urges that actual possession was not with the plaintiff, as he was not cultivating the land and there was a park and bunglow on this land and so the entry of Pukhta Maurusi is contradicted by the entry of existence of bungalow and park and also by the entry of Kadim Padti land. 9. A perusal of the judgment of the appellate court shows that the court hardly gave any reasoning to reach its conclusion in support of the judgment of the trial court, excepting that the plaintiff's name was not recorded as sole - possessor and the name of P.W.D. was recorded as Bhumiswami in the years Samwats 2007 onwards to Samwat 2024. 10. So far as the trial court is concerned, the trail court proceeded on the assumption that the plaintiff had to prove that the land was an ancestral land (PUSHTOUNIJAYJAD) and this was not established from the revenue record, although it was established from the evidence that he was in possession since Samwat 2007, consequently, the suit was dismissed. To my mind, the judgment proceeds on no legal ground and does not discuss the law applicable and the appellate court was not able to do any better. However, it appears that limited relief of injunction was granted to the plaintiff that he be not dispossessed except in due process of law. 11. Plaintiff is not satisfied with this partial relief and in the present appeal seeks a declaration of Bhumiswami rights. 12. Section 54 (vii) of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samwat 2007 is as under:- (vii) pakka Tenant - means a tenant who has been or whose predecessor in interest had been lawfully recorded in respect of his holding as a 'Ryot pattedar" "Mamuli Maurusi", "Gair Maurusi" and 'pukhta Maurusi when this Act comes in to force or who may in future be duly recognised as such by a competent authority. Explanation - The term "pukhta Maurusi" includes Istmurardar tenants, Malikana Haq - holder tenants, Hakkiyat Mulafarrikat Sharah Muayyana and Sakitul Milkiyat tenants" Section 158 of (he Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 in its relevant portion is as under :- 158. Explanation - The term "pukhta Maurusi" includes Istmurardar tenants, Malikana Haq - holder tenants, Hakkiyat Mulafarrikat Sharah Muayyana and Sakitul Milkiyat tenants" Section 158 of (he Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 in its relevant portion is as under :- 158. Bhumiswami (1) Every person who at the time of coming into force of this Code, belongs to any of the following classes shall be called a Bhumiswami and shall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon a Bhumiswami by or under this Code namely,- (a) --- --- --- (b) every person in respect of land held by him in the Madhya Bharat region as a Pakka tenant or as a Muafidar. Inamdar or concessional holder, as defined in the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (66 of 1950). (c) --- --- --- (d) --- --- --- (e) --- --- --- 13. Reading these provisions together, it becomes clear that at the time when the M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act came into force i.e. 15th August 1950, which correspondence to Samwat 2007, a person who was a Pakka tenant, will be called a Bhumiswami. This plaintiff was Pukhta Maurusi so recorded while the name of Govt. (P.W.D.) was recorded as owner during this period. The trial Court has given a finding that the plaintiff continued in possession since Samwat 2007. The net result is that the plaintiff appellant, who was recorded Pukhta Maurusi in possession in Samwat 2007, was a Pakka tenant, but the land was not being cultivated or was lying only fallow and there was some construction thereon. We do not find as to whom the construction belonged i.e. if it was there, as there is no evidence whatsoever, but the plaintiff was in possession. 14. In such a situation, section 54 sub-clause (vii) of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950 (squarel) applied. This provision of law does not require actual cultivation. Term 'Pukhta Maurusi' in this area of the erst while State of Gwalior finds its existence under the Kanoon Mal, Gwalior which is applicable as a Statute promulgated by the king in Council of the State of Gwalior in the year Samwat 1983. So it has a statutory and binding effect. This provision of law does not require actual cultivation. Term 'Pukhta Maurusi' in this area of the erst while State of Gwalior finds its existence under the Kanoon Mal, Gwalior which is applicable as a Statute promulgated by the king in Council of the State of Gwalior in the year Samwat 1983. So it has a statutory and binding effect. In this law, under section 2 Sub-section (29), 'Kastkar Maurusi' is defined as a person whose rights are heritable and who cannot be evicted from his land by a Malguzar without orders of the court and on whom land revenue cannot be increased without his consent or without orders of the court. Section 247 of this very Statute provides how Maurusi rights are obtained. It provides that those cultivators, whose 'possession' and cultivation continued for 12 years continuously, will be considered as Maurusi, if during that period there is no arrears of Lagan due against them. It is provides as to how 12 years period will be counted and how the arrears of Lagan may be taken as due or not due. There are various other sub-clauses to this section under which a cultivator becomes entitled to Maurusi rights. These are further provided in clauses (2) to (9) of section 247. But since those clauses are not relevant for the purposes of this appeal, I am not referring to them in detail. Section 248 Kanoon Mal further provides that a Zamindar can confer Maurusi rights on a cultivator by mutual consent. Section 249 provides that when a person obtains Maurusi rights or acquires Maurusi rights, that fact shall be entered in the revenue record by Register Taghaiyurat, according to the instructions given in the Land Record Manual under Rules 86 and 87. 15. These provisions do not require that if such person ceases to actually cultivate the land for any period or ceases to carry on the agricultural operations on the land, Ins rights will ceased or he will be liable for eviction. 16. So it appears to me, and nothing else has been argued at the bar by both the sides, that once this plaintiff was Maurusi in possession, when the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950 came into force, he was covered by the definition of 'Pakka Tenant' under section 54 (vii) of the Code. 16. So it appears to me, and nothing else has been argued at the bar by both the sides, that once this plaintiff was Maurusi in possession, when the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950 came into force, he was covered by the definition of 'Pakka Tenant' under section 54 (vii) of the Code. He continued in that capacity in possession till the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') was promulgated and came into force. It came into force on 2.10.1959. On that day, this plaintiff Laxman Rao was 'Pakka Tenant' in possession and so section 158 sub-section (b) protected him and gave him the rights of Bhumiswami. So on that date, he became Bhumiswami of the land irrespective of the fact whether it was lying 'Padti Kadim' and irrespective of the fact that there might have been 'bungalow' on that land. Laxman Rao was entitled to be recorded Bhumiswami on 2.10.59 (Samwat 2016). If he was so recorded in Khasra of Samwat 2026, it was only decade late. However, he was a Bhumiswami since Samwat 2016, and revenue authorities recognised him so in Samwat 2026 onwards. The recording of his sons with plaintiff as Bhumiswami did not effect his rights. In fact, he is Bhumiswami of the land since Samwat 2016. 17. Once he became Bhumiswami, could his rights be taken away and if so in what manner. Section 176 of the Code given an indication of the conditions when a Bhumiswami loses his rights. Those conditions are as under:- (1) He ceases to cultivate the land for 2 years. (2) He does not pay the land revenue. (3) He has left the place of his ordinary residence. All these conditions must co-exist. 18. There is no allegation in this case that the plaintiff was not paying the land revenue nor had he abandoned the place of his residence. He has been found to be in possession and of course so far as the entries are concerned, there appears to be no cultivation of the land except that in Samwats 2037 to 2040, there was cultivation of wheat, Chari and Arhar. Assuming that the land continued to be fallow or Padti, the other two conditions for taking away the rights are not pleaded nor shown to be existing. Assuming that the land continued to be fallow or Padti, the other two conditions for taking away the rights are not pleaded nor shown to be existing. Then for taking away of those rights, an order has to be made by Tahsildar in a proper proceedings after giving notice to the Bhumiswami and after enquiry. That course, of course, has not been adopted. 19. When a person gets vested with legal rights by a operation of law because of his certain previous status and because certain provisions were introduced and came into force, his legal rights, such a Bhumiswami, cannot be taken away except in the manner provided by law and on fulfilment of the conditions prescribed by law. Here entries in the revenue record showing name of certain persons owners or Bhumiswami e.g. P.W.D. in this case, becomes meaningless. So till the date when the suit was filed, the plaintiff continued to be Bhumiswami in possession. u/s 57 (1) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, all land belong to Govt. So Govt. is owner and cannot be 'Bhumiswami' which is a special statutory status, but lower than that of owner. P.W.D. is a department of the Govt. It was owner and could not be Bhumiswami. Plaintiff was the Bhumiswami. 20. This brings me to the objection against jurisdiction of civil court on the plea of applicability of sections 57 and 257 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. Section 57 (1) of the Code lays down that all land belongs to the State Govt. Proviso to this sub-section lays down that nothing in this section, except as otherwise provided in the Code, shall be deemed to affect any right of any person subsisting at the coming into force of this Code in any such property. Clause (2) is in the following terms: 57 (2):- Where a dispute arises between the State Govt. and any person in respect of any right under sub-section (1), such dispute shall be decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer. 57 (3):- Any person aggrieved by any order passed under sub-section (2) may institute civil suit to contest the validity of the order within a period of one year from the date of such order. 21. Section 257 of the Code vests the revenue authorities with exclusive jurisdiction and is in the following terms:- 257. 57 (3):- Any person aggrieved by any order passed under sub-section (2) may institute civil suit to contest the validity of the order within a period of one year from the date of such order. 21. Section 257 of the Code vests the revenue authorities with exclusive jurisdiction and is in the following terms:- 257. Exclusive jurisdiction or revenue authorities - Except as otherwise provided in this Code, or in any other enactment for the time being in force, no civil Court shall entertain any suit instituted or application made to obtain a decision or order on any matter which the State Government, the Board, or any Revenue officer is by this Code, empowered to determine, decided or dispose of, and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of this provision, no civil court shall exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters:- (a) any decision regarding the purpose to which land is appropriated under section 39; (b) any question as to the validity or effect of the notification of a revenue survey or any question as to the term of a settlement. (c) any claim to modify a decision determining abadi made by a Settlement Officer or Collector; (d) any claim against the State Government to hold land free of land revenue, or at less than the fair assessment, or to be assigned in whole or in part the land revenue assessed on any land; (e) the amount of land revenue assessed or re-assessed under this Code or any other enactment for the time being in force. (f) any claim against the State Government to have any entry made in any land record or to have any such entry omitted or amended; (g) any question regarding the demarcation of boundaries or fixing of boundary marks under Chapter X; (h) any claim against the State Government connected with or arising out of the collection of land revenue or the recovery of any sum which is recoverable as land revenue under this Code or any other enactment; (i) any claim against the State Government or against a Revenue Officer for remission or suspension of land revenue, or for a declaration that crops have failed in any year; (j) any decision regarding forfeiture in cases of certain transfer under section 166; (k) ejectment of a lessee of a Bhumiswami under sub-section (1) of section 168; (l) any claim to set aside transfer by a Bhumiswami under sub-section (1) of section 170 and clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of section 170- A. (m) ejectment of a Government lessee under section 182; (n) resumption by a Bhumiswami of land held by an occupancy tenant under section 189 and the fixation of rent of land left, if any with the occupancy tenant; (o) claim by occupancy tenant for conferral of the rights of Bhumiswami under section 190; (p) restoration of possession to any occupancy tenant under section 191; (q) termination of tenancy of an occupancy tenant under section 193; (r) any claim to set side transfer by an occupancy tenant under section 197; (s) the imposition of penalty on a Bhumiswami under section 200; (t) suspension and remission of rent under section 201; (u) any decision regarding re-instatement of a wrongfully ejected occupancy tenant under section 202; (v) amount payable as compensation under sub-section (3) of section 209, confirmation of the scheme for consolidation of holdings under section 210 transfers of rights in carrying out the scheme under section 213 and assessment and apportionment of costs of consolidation of holdings under section 215; (w) any claim to modify any entry in the Nistar Patrak; (x) any decision regarding re-instatement of a Bhumiswami improperly dispossessed under section 250; (y) any decision regarding vesting of tanks in State Government under Section 251 and any claim against the State Government arising thereunder; (z) any claim against the State Government to set aside or modify any premium, penalty, cess or rate imposed or assessed under the provision of the Code or any other enactment for the time being in force; (z-1) any claim against the State Government arising under section 255 regarding prescription of standards of cultivation and management; (z-2) any claim to compel the performance of any duty imposed by the Code on any Revenue Officer or other officer appointed under this Code; In sub-clauses (a) to z-2) to this section, there is no specific reference to any order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under section 57 (2) of the Code. 22. Learned counsel for the respondents has cited a case reported in AIR 1993 M.P. 155 (State of M.P. and another -v- Gyasiram and others) by a Division Bench of this Court in which interpretation of section 57 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 was considered. It was a case of suit against the State Govt. with respect to the rights of ownership in the land acquired after coming into force of this Code on the basis of adverse possession. The Division Bench held that such a suit could not be brought directly in the civil court and the concerned party must move the revenue authorities, as required under section 57 sub-section (2) of the Code. However, as regards the suit for establishing the rights of Bhumiswami, one Judge observed that such a suit could lie directly in civil court, while the another Judge said that it could not. But since the disposal of the suit, did not turn on this issue, it remained only obiterdicta expressing different opinion by two Judges, but not affecting the result of the suit. 23. As against this, learned counsel for the appellant has cited a Single Bench decision of this Court reported in 1994 RN 124 (Biharilal -v- Radhey Saran). In this case, the Single Bench observed that a civil suit based on Bhumiswami rights over the suit land is maintainable and in such suit, the provisions of clause (o) of section 257 of the Code is not attracted. Clause (o) of section 257 of the Code deals with the claim of occupancy tenant for conferral of the rights of Bhumiswami under section 190. Section 190 of the Code deals with the claim of occupancy tenant belonging to any categories specified in section 185 (1) of the Code except items (a) & (b) of sub-clause (i) against a Bhumiswami to the effect that he (occupancy tenant) has obtained the rights of Bhumiswami. In the cited case, the suit was of course by Bhumiswami and defendant asserted himself to have acquired right by adverse possession as a trespasser. In the present suit, the plaintiff claims to be having Bhumiswami rights and claims to prevent mischief by trespassed by defendant-State. That is the substance of his suit. He is not claiming conferment of rights of Bhumiswami under section 190 of the Code. 24. In the present suit, the plaintiff claims to be having Bhumiswami rights and claims to prevent mischief by trespassed by defendant-State. That is the substance of his suit. He is not claiming conferment of rights of Bhumiswami under section 190 of the Code. 24. The present suit is not of a type prescribed in clause (o) of section 257 of the Code, as the claim under section 190 of the Code pertains to the claim by a Maurusi against Bhumiswami. When Bhumiswami fails to lake the specified action against Maurusi within the prescribed period, then the rights of Bhumiswami shall accrue to the occupancy tenant. These occupancy tenants have to be of the categories prescribed in section 185 (1) of the Code. The plaintiff in the present suit, is not claiming any of the categories specified in section 185 (1) of the Code. He claims to have been Pukhta Maurusi turned into Pakka tenant and, therefore, his rights have also ripened into that of Bhumiswami under section 158 of the Code of 1959 and he is already so recorded a Bhumiswami in revenue record. 25. On consideration of the provisions of section 257 of the Code, I am of the clear view that the present suit is not a type of suit mentioned in section 257 of the Code generally or any of its clauses (a) to (2). 26. As regard the applicability of section 57 (2) of the Code it is clear that the present suit is not a suit for declaration of ownership of the land against the Government. It is also not a suit wherein subsisting rights at the time of coming into force of the Act are claimed to be protected. It is the suit of a type which claims that by operation of certain provisions of the Act, under section 158, the plaintiffs earlier rights (Pakka Tenant's rights) ripened into Bhumiswami rights. Bhumiswami rights did not exist at the time of coming into force of this Code. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the present suit is of a type wherein "any rights reference to in the proviso to section 57 (1) of the code is being claimed". So the obligation to move the Sub-Divisional Officer under sub-section (o) of section 257 of the Code will not arise. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the present suit is of a type wherein "any rights reference to in the proviso to section 57 (1) of the code is being claimed". So the obligation to move the Sub-Divisional Officer under sub-section (o) of section 257 of the Code will not arise. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that impliedly the jurisdiction of civil court will be barred for the present declaration. In my view, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 27. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the plaintiff had become Bhumiswami of the land on 2nd October. 1959, i.e. on coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The State of Madhya Pradesh has not shown any right to interfere with this right of the plaintiff who has been found to be in possession by the trial Court. This court, therefore, accepts the appeal sets aside the judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court and first appellate Court and pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff for declaration that he is the Bhumiswami of the disputed land and in possession of the same and the defendants are restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. However, in view of various legal questions involved in the form of interpretation of documents and statutory provisions of law. I leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed