JUDGMENT 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 8.1.1991 passed by the learned Third Additional District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Appeal No. 26N88 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Second Civil Judge Class-II, Ujjain in Civil Suit No. 661-A/79 dismissing the suit has been reversed and set aside and the suit of plaintiffs has been decreed, the State of Madhya Pradesh has come up in this second appeal knocking the doors of this Court under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. Karansingh S/o Sardarsingh and Madansingh S/o Narayansingh were the plaintiffs. They filed a suit for declaration of Bhoomiswami right and injunction arraying State of Madhya Pradesh through Collector Ujjain, Murti Shri Ram Mandir Pujari Sitabai- Manager, Collector Ujjain and Ambaram as defendants. According to the plaint averments in village Mohanpura, there is a temple known as "Shri Ram Mandir" and this temple is the Bhoomiswami of the agricultural land the description whereof has been mentioned in para 1 of the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, the Pujari of said temple is Smt. Sitabai widow of Ramchandra. For last two years from the date of filing of the suit (suit filed on 26.6.1979), all of a sudden the name of Collector, Ujjain has been endorsed as "Vyavsthapak" (Manager) in Column No.3 of the Khasra. 3. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the agricultural land was given by the temple through Pujari Sitabai (defendant No.2) to Sardarsingh and Narayansingh, whose sons are plaintiffs, for cultivation on the basis of relationship of Shikmi. It is also the case of the plaintiff that Narayansingh and Sardarsingh were paying land revenue to Pujari of the temple and were cultivating the land in question and after their death plaintiffs are cultivating the land as Shikmi. 4. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.2 Murti Shri Ram Mandir through Pujari Smt. Sitabai filed an application under section 248 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (here-in-after referred to as "the Code") and in those proceedings it was submitted by the plaintiffs that they are the lessee on the suit agricultural land and if their lease is to be terminated, it can be terminated in accordance with the procedure as contemplated under sub-section (4) of section 168 of the Code. Till the lease is determined, proceedings under section 248 of the Code cannot be commenced. According to plaintiffs Tahsildar dismissed the application of defendant No.2 and directed that till the lease is detem1ined, the plaintiffs cannot be said to be a trespasser and they cannot be evicted from the suit property under the purview of section 248 of the Code. It is pleaded by plaintiffs that the said decision of Tahsildar became final. 5. It has been further pleaded by the plaintiff's that without adopting the procedure as contemplated under section 168 (4) of the Code, again the proceedings under section 248 of the Code were initiated against the plaintiffs and in those proceedings Naib Tahsildar has passed an order against them on 2.8.1978 holding the plaintiffs to be trespassers and they were directed to be evicted. The said order of Naib Tahsildar is without jurisdiction, as a result of which each plaintiff filed separate appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer and those appeals were dismissed on 3.3.1979. Thereafter plaintiffs after giving notice under section 80 of CPC on 8.3.1979, which was served on Collector, Ujjain on 12.3.1979, filed the present civil suit. 6. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that defendant State of Madhya Pradesh through its Collector, Ujjain without jurisdiction gave the suit land to defendant No.3 on lease and who is now trying to take possession of the suit land of the plaintiffs. 7. In para 7 of the plaint, it has been pleaded that while dismissing the appeals of plaintiffs on 3.3.1979 by Sub-Divisional Officer it was held therein that the suit land was cultivated by the plaintiffs, therefore, the same may be given to them for one year on lease. In para 8 of plaint it has been pleaded that Tahsildar, Ujjain gave threat to the plaintiffs that in case they will not accept the suit land on lease as Govt. In para 8 of plaint it has been pleaded that Tahsildar, Ujjain gave threat to the plaintiffs that in case they will not accept the suit land on lease as Govt. lessee, their crop shall be destroyed and because the crop which was standing in the field was ripe, therefore, on 13.3.1979 plaintiffs submitted an application by mentioning therein that since the crop is standing on the land and it is not cut the same will be damaged or destroyed, therefore, by protecting their all rights, under protest it was prayed by the plaintiffs that they be permitted to cut the crop, thereafter Naib Tahsildar executed one agreement which was accepted by plaintiffs under protest and stated that they are taking the land of Govt. of Madhya Pradesh on lease and after one year, the possession shall be handed over to the State of Madhya Pradesh. In this manner the present suit has been filed. 8. Despite all the defendants including defendant No.1 the State of Madhya Pradesh was served, the written statement was not filed. On going through the order-sheets of learned trial Court, it is revealed that several adjournments were sought on behalf of defendants No.1 and 2 to file written statement but neither any written statement was filed nor they appeared, therefore, later on, on 15.11.1979 the trial Court proceeded ex-parte against the defendants. Though in the order-sheet of the trial Court dated 29.6.1979 it is mentioned that defendant No.3 Ambaram has filed written statement and a copy thereof is also delivered to the plaintiffs but no written statement is found in the record. This Court finds that only reply of application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC was filed on 29.6.1979 and which is on record. It appears that learned trial Court under misconception wrote that written statement has been filed though only reply to application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC was filed by defendant No.3 on that date. The defendant No.3 also did not appear on subsequent dates and he was also proceeded ex parte vide order dated 17.12.1979 by learned trial Court. 9. In the suit, which was proceeded ex parte against the defendants, plaintiff No. 2 Madansingh examined himself as PW 1 and also examined one witness Kunwarji (PW 2) and proved the documents Ex. P-1 to P-18. 10. 9. In the suit, which was proceeded ex parte against the defendants, plaintiff No. 2 Madansingh examined himself as PW 1 and also examined one witness Kunwarji (PW 2) and proved the documents Ex. P-1 to P-18. 10. The learned trial Court on the basis of oral and documentary evidence came to hold that plaintiffs have failed to prove their case, as a result of which dismissed their suit. It would be pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of Civil Suit plaintiff No. 1 Karan Singh breathed his last, as a result of which his LRs Kesharbai, Sajanbai and Bhuribai were brought on record. 11. The plaintiffs assailed the judgment and decree of trial Court dismissing their suit, by filing an appeal before learned appellate Court which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and decree and the suit of the plaintiffs has been decreed. 12. In this manner the present second appeal has been filed by the defendant No.1 State of M.P. through Collector, Ujjain. 13. This Court on 31.7.1991 admitted the second appeal on the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether the finding of the learned lower appellate Court is contrary to the material on record regarding the status of the respondents as Pattedars of Sitabai? and 2. Whether the learned lower appellante Court judgment is vitiated on account of not considering the provisions of section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code? 14. I have heard Smt. Rashmi Pandit, learned Dy. Government Advocate for appellant-State and Shri Shastri learned counsel for respondents. It has been argued by the learned Dy. Government Advocate that temple Ramjanki was the temple of erstwhile Gwalior State and Collector of Ujjain District was the Manager of the temple and if the Pujari of the temple has given the suit land to plaintiffs to cultivate the same, they cannot acquire the status of Shikmi and if that would be the position, the learned trial Court erred in decreeing the suit of plaintiffs. It has also been put forth by her that in absence of any Patta on record indicating and proving the status of plaintiffs to be Pattedar of Sitabai, it cannot be said that they have acquired any right on the suit property and in that situation, since the land is of the State of M.P., therefore, the provisions of section 248 of the Code are attracted and a valid order has been passed by Naib Tahsildar, Ujjain dated 2.8.1978 holding the plaintiffs to be trespasser and directing them to be evicted from the suit property, which is also affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in appeal. 15. On the other hand, Shri Shastri, learned counsel for respondents argued in support of the impugned judgment. 16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Regarding substantial question of law No.1: 17. On going through the findings rendered by learned first appellate Court from para 6 onwards it is revealed that after appreciating and marshalling the evidence, the learned first appellate Court in para 10 of its judgment came to a definite finding of fact that the suit land is of a private temple and Sitabai who is Pujari of the said temple gave the suit agricultural land to plaintiff's predecessors. Specifically it has been held that suit land is not Govt. land. The said finding is a pure finding of fact and cannot be assailed in the second appeal. I have also gone through the documentary evidence which has been placed on record and has been proved by plaintiff No. 1 Madansingh (PW 1). Ex. P-14 is the certified copy of Khasra of year 1973-74 to 1977-78. In this Khasra Shri Ram temple has been shown as Bhoomiswami of the suit land through "Vyavsthapak" (Manager). The name of plaintiffs Karansingh and Madansingh have been entered in Column No.4 which is a column of Shikmi. No where during the year 1973 to 1978 the name of Collector has been mentioned in the revenue record. Khasra of Samvat 2025 (corresponding year 1968-69) Ex. P-15 also indicates and proves the same position. Similarly in Khasra of Samvat 2021 to 2023 (Ex. P-16) the same position has been mentioned. On going through Ex. No where during the year 1973 to 1978 the name of Collector has been mentioned in the revenue record. Khasra of Samvat 2025 (corresponding year 1968-69) Ex. P-15 also indicates and proves the same position. Similarly in Khasra of Samvat 2021 to 2023 (Ex. P-16) the same position has been mentioned. On going through Ex. P-17, which is a Khasra of the year 1978-79 it is revealed that Shri Ram Mandir has been shown to be the Bhoomiswami and plaintiffs are shown to be the Shikmi as their names finds place in requisite column No.4. On close scrutiny of this document, it is revealed that in column No.3 Shri Ram Mandir has been shown to be Bhoomiswami and Pujari Sitabai has been shown again, thereafter, Collector, Ujjain has been shown as "Vyavsthapak" (Manager). Under whose order the entry of Collector, Ujjain as, "Vyavsthapak" (Manager) has been directed to be endorsed, there is nothing in Ex. P-17. In Khasra of the year 1978-79 to 1982-83 (Ex. P-l8) Bhoomiswami of the disputed land Shri Ram Mandir has been shown in the requisite column No.3 and the name of Sitabai as well as Collector, Ujjain has been shown as "Vyavsthapak" (Manager). The names of plaintiffs are endorsed as Shikmi in requisite column No.4. Thus the status of plaintiffs as Shikmi has been proved from the overwhelming revenue record which I have mentioned here-in-above. Hence, according to me since the entry of plaintiffs in revenue record as Shikmi has never been challenged by Shri Ram Mandir through Pujari Sitabai or even Sitabai, as well as in the absence of any written statement challenging the status of plaintiffs to be Shikmi I am of the view that the status of plaintiffs-respondents as Shikmi of Shri Ram Mandir is proved. 18. This Court in Bharat Singh and others v. Cyan Singh and others [1970 RN 426] has categorically held that the entries in Village papers are presumed to be correct and the tenancy can be proved by Khasra entry alone unless contrary established. The same view has again been taken by Single Bench of this Court in Dev Rao Jadav v. Gangaram [ 1984 JLJ 478 ] wherein in para 12 it has been emphatically held that the revenue papers of Sam vat 2006 to 2009 showed plaintiff as sub tenant of Nadar Khan. The same view has again been taken by Single Bench of this Court in Dev Rao Jadav v. Gangaram [ 1984 JLJ 478 ] wherein in para 12 it has been emphatically held that the revenue papers of Sam vat 2006 to 2009 showed plaintiff as sub tenant of Nadar Khan. These entries in revenue record is having presumptive value and in the light of other evidence and circumstances on record, the finding of fact about the nature of the right under which plaintiff held the suit land cannot be called perverse. The Supreme Court in Shikhar Chand Jain v. Digambar Jain, AIR 1974 SC 1178 has held that the Khasra is a record of right, according to section 45 (2) of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917 section 80 (3) of that Act provides that entries in a record of right shall be presumed to be Correct unless contrary is shown. This provision raises presumption of correctness of the aforesaid Khasra entries. Further it was held that the Court was wholly wrong in discarding the Khasra entries on the solitary statement in certain paragraphs of the plaint. Thus there is no even hair escape that the plaintiffs cannot be said to be Shikmi of Shri Ram Mandir whose Pujari is Sitabai. 19. Apart from what I have held here-in-above, on going through para 8 of the impugned judgment, it is revealed that the case of appellant-State of Madhya Pradesh before learned First Appellate Court was that the disputed land belonged to the State of Madhya Pradesh and, therefore, Sitabai who was only Pujari of the temple was not having any right to give the land on Patta to the plaintiff Thus, according to me defendant-State of Madhya Pradesh is impliedly admitting the factum of giving Patta by Sitabai, who is the Pujari of Shri Ram Mandir to plaintiffs though the stand of defendant-State of Madhya Pradesh is that disputed land belonged to the State. However, not even a single document is on record in order to establish and prove that Shri Ram Mandir is the Mandir of State Government. Thus Shri Ram Mandir is a private Mandir and on the disputed land which is of Shri Ram Mandir plaintiffs are Shikmi and, therefore, the land belonging to private temple cannot be treated as Govt. land. If in the Khasra of the year 1978-79 (Ex. Thus Shri Ram Mandir is a private Mandir and on the disputed land which is of Shri Ram Mandir plaintiffs are Shikmi and, therefore, the land belonging to private temple cannot be treated as Govt. land. If in the Khasra of the year 1978-79 (Ex. P-17) and Khasra of the year 1978-79 to 1981-83 (Ex. P-18) all of a sudden by a stroke of pen name of Collector, Ujjain as "Vyavsthapak" (Manager) has been endorsed. It cannot be said that the disputed land has become the Government land. No such law has been placed before me in this regard by learned counsel for the appellate-State. Apart from this, there is nothing on record in order to indicate that under whose order the said alteration in the revenue record was made and before endorsing the name of Collector, Ujjain as "Vyavsthapak" (Manager) whether Sitabai or plaintiffs were ever noticed. It is again pertinent to mention here that the name of Sitabai is still continuing in revenue record as Pujari. Under section 115 of the Code, if Tahsildar finds that a wrong or incorrect entry has been made in the record prepared under section 114 by an Officer Sub Ordinate to him, he shall direct necessary changes to be made therein in red ink after making such inquiry from the person concerned as he may deem fit after due written notice. There is nothing on record that the entry in the Khasra was wrong and before endorsing the name of Collector, Ujjain as "Vyavsthapak" (Manager) of Shri Ram Mandir either plaintiffs or even Sitabai was noticed and, thereafter, the name of Collector, Ujjain was endorsed as "Vyavsthapak" (Manager). 20. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that on the basis of overwhelming evidence on record status of plaintiffs as Pattedar has been proved. The substantial question of law No. 1 is thus answered accordingly. Regarding substantial question No.2: 21. Since the suit land is not Govt. land, therefore, provisions under section 248 of the Code are not applicable in the present case because the said provision pertains to Govt. land and the person who unauthorizedly takes possession of Govt. land is liable for penalty and he can also be evicted. Hence, according to me the provisions of section 248 of the Code are not applicable in the present case. The substantial question o flaw No.2 is answered accordingly. 22. land and the person who unauthorizedly takes possession of Govt. land is liable for penalty and he can also be evicted. Hence, according to me the provisions of section 248 of the Code are not applicable in the present case. The substantial question o flaw No.2 is answered accordingly. 22. Resultantly, this appeal is found to be bereft of any substance and the same is, hereby, dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs.2,000/- if pre-certified.