JUDGMENT Tej Shankar, J. 1. This is plaintiffs' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23-3-1994 passed by the First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior. It has arisen out of the following facts: 2. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that they were the owner and in possession of Survey No. 199/1 measuring .314 hectares situated at tahsil Bhander, District-Gwalior, and the order passed by the defendant/respondent No. 2 in case No. 2/87-88/Ni.20(l) dated 16-5-1988 was illegal and without jurisdiction. A relief for permanent injunction was also sought restraining the defendants and their subordinates from interfering in plaintiffs' possession over the suit lands. They claimed that the suit land was allotted under a patta by the Naib Tahsildar, Bhander on 14-12-1983 in Case No. 297/83-84-A/19 and the plaintiffs were granted bhumiswami rights from the date of allotment. The plaintiffs have been in possession and doing cultivation over the land. The plaintiffs had also been in possession from before allotment for about 40 years and taking into consideration this fact the patta was granted. On the basis of the pattas their names were also mutated in khasra. The respondent No. 2 i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhander acting suo motu as a revising Court cancelled the pattas by order dated 16-5-1988 passed in Case No. 297/83-84-A/19 on the ground that the pattas were forged. The conclusions of the Sub-Divisional Officer were incorrect. The plaintiffs were not given opportunity to be heard. It violated the principle of natural justice. It was without jurisdiction. They filed writ petition before this Court (Misc. Petition No. 666/88) which was disposed of on 14-9-1990 and the plaintiffs were directed to file a civil suit. Hence, they filed the present suit. The defendants contested the claim and alleged that the plaintiffs were not the bhumiswamis. The facts alleged were concocted. The pattas dated 14-12-1983 in Case No. 297/83-84-A/19 were wrong and forged. After making due enquiry and following the procedure prescribed the forged pattas were cancelled on 16-5-1988 in Misc. Case No. 2/87-88-A/20(1). The plaintiffs were liable to be prosecuted. They were never in possession. It was incorrect that they have been in possession for the last 40 years. The mutation was got on the basis of forged pattas which have been cancelled. Case No. 2/87-88-A/20(1). The plaintiffs were liable to be prosecuted. They were never in possession. It was incorrect that they have been in possession for the last 40 years. The mutation was got on the basis of forged pattas which have been cancelled. The plaintiffs ought to have filed an appeal against the order of cancellation of pattas and as such the suit was not maintainable. The learned trial Court framed issues that arose from the pleadings of the parties, took evidence, and heard the parties and after considering the entire material dismissed the suit. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the plaintiffs/appellants were allotted the land in dispute under a valid patta by the competent authority. They were also in possession from before the allotment in their favour for about 40 years. They, therefore, were the owners of the disputed land. The Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to cancel the Pattas exercising the revisional jurisdiction suo motu. Learned counsel also urged that in any case the order of cancellation was passed without giving any opportunity to the plaintiffs which was against the principle of natural justice. The learned counsel referred to the provisions of Section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and argued that this provision confers the revisional jurisdiction on the authorities mentioned therein. It does not include a Sub-Divisional Officer. Reference has also been made to clause 3 which provides that a notice has to be given. As no opportunity was given, the impugned order is illegal. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that under the Revenue Book Circular power to make allotment was conferred on the Naib-Tahsildar. The pattas alleged by the plaintiffs were forged documents and on the basis of forged documents mutation was got effected. After the enquiry the Sub-Divisional Officer in exercise of revisional jurisdiction cancelled the pattas. It cannot, therefore, be said that it was without jurisdiction. He also pointed out that an amendment has been made in the Revenue Book Circular under which the Sub-Divisional Officer was conferred revising power. The next contention of the learned counsel is that the plaintiffs ought to have filed a suit initially before the Sub-Divisional Officer as provided Under Section 57 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and thereafter should have approached the Civil Court. The suit was, therefore, not maintainable. 4. The next contention of the learned counsel is that the plaintiffs ought to have filed a suit initially before the Sub-Divisional Officer as provided Under Section 57 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and thereafter should have approached the Civil Court. The suit was, therefore, not maintainable. 4. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties raised two questions for determination. The first point is as to whether any Patta was granted to the plaintiffs as claimed by them and secondly whether the Sub-Divisional Officer had jurisdiction to cancel the Patta. As far as the question of grant of Patta is concerned, it has to be mentioned at the very outset that the fact that there was a Patta in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants is not in dispute. Learned counsel for the appellants drew my attention to the statement of D.W. 2 where he categorically admitted the execution of the Patta. D.W. 2 is B. B. Chourasiya, who was Tahsildar Bhander. He deposed that he had seen the record of Survey No. 132/42 and 199/1. He categorically stated in para 4 that Pattas were granted earlier with respect to these lands. They were cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer. He also stated that there were entries with respect to the grant of Pattas but the files were not available. The records of the implementation of the Pattas were available. He further stated that in the year 1983 Tahsildar and Naib Tahsildar had power to allot agricultural lands. He did not make any effort to search for the record even after he had seen that there was an entry. In the teeth of this statement it cannot be claimed that pattas were not granted. The defendants have claimed that the pattas were forged but no material has been brought on record nor there are circumstances to show that there was a forgery rather as mentioned earlier the Tahsildar himself has stated that pattas were granted and they were in records in that record which were not available, and he did not try to search for them. In this view of the matter the claim of the plaintiffs that they were allotted the lands under the pattas stands admitted. It does not call for any investigation in the teeth of the statement of the Tahsildar B. B. Chourasiya (D.W. 2). In this view of the matter the claim of the plaintiffs that they were allotted the lands under the pattas stands admitted. It does not call for any investigation in the teeth of the statement of the Tahsildar B. B. Chourasiya (D.W. 2). The fact that the pattas were also acted upon has also been admitted by him inasmuch as there were entries in khasra as a consequence thereof. Thus, the case of the plaintiffs that they were allotted pattas and which were acted upon does not remain in doubt. 5. The next question is as to whether the Sub-Divisional Officer had any jurisdiction to act suo motu as a revising authority and cancel the pattas. In this connection the learned counsel for the appellants contended that Section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code confers revisional powers upon the authority mentioned therein but it does not include the Sub-Divisional Officer. Consequently, the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to act as a revising authority. The contention of the learned counsel for the State is that the Sub-Divisional Officer was invested with the power of revising authority under R.B.C. 30-Ka which has been amended in the year 1987. Before considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it must be mentioned at the very outset that the preamble of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 shows that:- "An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to Land Revenue, the powers of Revenue Officers rights and liabilities of holders of land from the State Government, agricultural tenures and other matters relating to land and the liabilities incidental thereto in Madhya Pradesh." This code is a consolidated code with respect to the law relating to land revenue etc. The Revenue Board Circular on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents does not appear to have been framed under the authority of any statute. An enquiry was specifically made from the learned counsel for the State to show the authority under which the Revenue Book Circular was issued but he could not do so. Thus the law with respect to land revenue etc. rights and liabilities of holders of land were consolidated under the M.P. Land Revenue Code and it has to prevail. The circulars or administrative instructions of the State Government have to be in any case in conformity with the statute. Thus the law with respect to land revenue etc. rights and liabilities of holders of land were consolidated under the M.P. Land Revenue Code and it has to prevail. The circulars or administrative instructions of the State Government have to be in any case in conformity with the statute. Even rules, which are framed under the authority of statute cannot be made contradictory to the main provisions of the statue. M.P. Land Revenue Code makes a provision Under Section 50 for revision and under this provision the Board of the Commissioner or the Settlement Commissioner or the Collector or the Settlement Officer has been vested with the power of revision and this can be exercised either on their own motion or on the application made by any party for the purposes of satisfying itself as to legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceeding of any Revenue Officer subordinate. It does not include the Sub-Divisional Officer of the Division. It may also be mentioned here that clause 3 of the section makes provision that no order shall be varied or reversed in revision unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them of being heard. Thus revisional power can be exercised under this provision alone. It may be argued that this provision does not apply as the revisional powers were exercised under the provisions of Revenue Board Circular para-4 Kandika 30(Ka). A perusal of this provision shows that it has been mentioned therein that according to the decision taken by the committee, constituted Under Section 3 of the implementation of the Bis Sutriya Karyakram Ka Karyanvayan Adhiniyam, 1980 that the allotment made by the Tahsildar, Naib Tahsildar may be suo motu revised by an officer not less than Deputy Collector. Now, if we go through the provisions of Section 3 of the M.P. Lok Abhikaranon Ke Madhyam Se Bis Sutriya Karyakram Ka Karyanvayan Adhiniyam, 1980 we find that it does not confer power to make the provision for suo motu revision. It simply provides that for the implementation of Bis Sutriya Karyakram the State Government may by a notification could constitute a committee. No authority has been conferred upon the committee to make a provision conferring any right of revision etc. It simply provides that for the implementation of Bis Sutriya Karyakram the State Government may by a notification could constitute a committee. No authority has been conferred upon the committee to make a provision conferring any right of revision etc. Thus to my mind the powers conferred under Kandika-30(Ka) cannot be said to have any legal authority. In any case, the law relating to Land Revenue, rights and liabilities of land would have been consolidated under the M.P. Land Revenue Code and it does not confer any authority upon the State Government to make any provision in contradiction with the provisions made under the Code etc. No other forum can be created conferring powers of revision upon any other authority. In this view of the matter to my mind the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the suo motu exercise of the revisional powers by Sub-Divisional Officer was without jurisdiction, has to be accepted. The Sub-Divisional Officer could not suo motu revise the order of allotment and cancel it. Even if for the sake of argument it is taken that the Sub-Divisional Officer could do so in that case too it is wholly against the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the order of cancellation of the allotment in exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction without giving opportunity to the person concerned and without hearing him. I am therefore of the view that the order of cancellation of Patta, granted in favour of the plaintiffs is without jurisdiction. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is therefore accepted. 6. Once it is found that the order of cancellation of Patta passed by Sub-Divisional Officer is without jurisdiction, the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs of the declaration to that effect. It may however be made clear that it will be open to the State Government to take such action for cancellation of Patta as the law permits. Once it is found that the order of cancellation of Patta is illegal and without jurisdiction, it has to be taken that the plaintiff will be relegated back to the stage where he was before the cancellation of Patta. Once it is found that the order of cancellation of Patta is illegal and without jurisdiction, it has to be taken that the plaintiff will be relegated back to the stage where he was before the cancellation of Patta. He is entitled to the rights conferred upon him under the Patta as had been conferred upon him subject of course to any order that may be passed by any competent authority with respect to the cancellation of the Patta. 7. Before parting with I may also mention another argument of the learned counsel for the respondent. He urged that the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 57 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. Learned counsel contended that as there was a question of ownership of the land, the plaintiff ought to have approached the Sub-Divisional Officer in view of Section 57(2) and having failed, he could file a suit in the Civil Court to contest the validity of the order. There cannot be any quarrel about the law laid down Under Section 57. Whenever a dispute arises between the State, under Sub-section (1), the dispute has to be decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer and after having filed a suit to contest the validity of the order may be filed in Civil Court as provided under clause 3 but the present case is not of that type. Here the plaintiff had challenged the order of cancellation of Patta, passed by S.D.O. on the ground that he had no jurisdiction. In my view the order can be challenged in a Civil Court without approaching the Sub-Divisional Officer Under Section 57(2). The contention is therefore rejected. In the result, the appeal succeeds in part. The order passed by learned trial Court is set aside. The suit is decreed to this extent that the order of cancellation of Patta, passed by the S.D.O. is set aside and the plaintiff is relegated back to the position, where he was before the cancellation of Patta. The State Government will however be free to take such action for cancellation of Patta as the law permits before competent forum. In the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs throughout.