JUDGMENT 1. Appellant has preferred this appeal under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.5.2001 passed by the V Additional District Judge, Bhopal in regular Civil Appeal No. 6A/200l whereby dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2000 passed by III Civil Judge Class I Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 50A/2000. 2. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are the appellant-plaintiff State has filed a Civil Suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents related for the agricultural land Survey No. 68/1 area 0.51 acre and Survey No.68A/3/2 area 4 acres situated at village Prempura, Bhadbhada Road, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as disputed land). It is pleaded that the appellant-plaintiff State is continuously in possession of the aforesaid land since 1.11.1956 till the date of filing of the suit and on this land certain constructions were made by the S.A.F. 25th Btn. The appellant-plaintiff is in possession since last more than 45 years and peacefully enjoying the rights on the aforesaid land. The respondents with the collusion of revenue officers wrongly mutated their name in the revenue records on the aforesaid disputed land and on the basis of this entry in the revenue record the respondents are trying to take the possession of the aforesaid disputed land from the appellant-plaintiff. On the basis of these pleadings the appellants-plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants before the Civil Judge, Bhopal. The trial Court after hearing both the parties by order dated 18.12.2000 decided the preliminary issue with regard to the jurisdiction to hear the civil suit and held that the present civil suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff is not maintainable under the provisions of section 57 (2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as MPLRC for brevity) and thus, rejected the plaint. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellants-plaintiffs have preferred Civil Appeal No. 6A12001 before the V Additional District Judge, Bhopal. The learned appellate Court after hearing both the parties by judgment dated 19.5.2001 affirmed the impugned order passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal, hence the appellants-plaintiffs came up before this Court by this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The learned appellate Court after hearing both the parties by judgment dated 19.5.2001 affirmed the impugned order passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal, hence the appellants-plaintiffs came up before this Court by this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. This Court by order dated 10.5.2005 admitted this appeal and formulated following substantial question of law for hearing: "1. Whether the finding in the impugned judgment regarding the want of jurisdiction of the civil Court for the non-compliance of the mandate uls.57 (2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code can be sustained when in the proposed amendment it was stated by the appellants that they had complied with the provisions of section 57 of the said Code? 2. Whether the rejection of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC of the appellants by the learned appellate Court on the date of pronouncement of the impugned judgment has caused miscarriage of justice?" 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the counsel for respondent on the aforesaid question of law and also perused the record. 5. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that both the Courts below rejected the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the civil suit is barred under the provisions of section 57 (2) of MPLRC as held in the decision of this Court reported in State of M.P.v. Gyarsiram [1993 RN 113] and Hukum Singh v. State of M.P. [2000 RN 135]. On the basis of the aforesaid decision of this Court, both the Courts below held that before filing of this suit for declaration and injunction the plaintiffs ought to move an application under section 57 (2) of MPLRC before the competent authority then only the civil suit will lie under section 57 (3) of the MPLRC. This approach of both the Courts below is erroneous and this Court in a Full Bench Decision reported in State of M.P. v. Salveer Singh S/o Sabulal [2001 RN 343 = 2001 (2) MPU 644] clearly laid down that a Bhumiswami on the basis of his legal rights acquired under the Code can file the regular civil suit for declaration of his title in the civil Court and section 57 (2) is not barred for such type of civil suit. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Full Bench decision the rejection of the appellants-plaintiffs' plaint by the Courts below is erroneous and liable to be set aside. Therefore, prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment passed by the Courts below and for the remand of the original civil suit for a fresh decision on merits. 6. 6. In reply the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents supported the impugned judgment passed by the Courts below and submit that this Court in the aforesaid Full Bench decision in State of M.P. v. Salveer Singh (supra) clearly laid down that only the Bhumiswami's cultivating right is not covered under section 57 (1) of the MPLRC and for that purpose the civil, suit can be filed without approaching the SDO as provided under section 57 (2) of the Code; but in the present case the cultivating right on the disputed land of the plaintiffs is not in dispute. Therefore, the plaintiffs ought to move firstly before the competent authority SDO for his right under the provisions of section 57 (2) of MPLRC and thus without approaching the SDO the present civil suit cannot lie before the civil Court and thus both the Courts below rightly held that the civil Court is not having jurisdiction to hear the present suit and rightly rejected the plaint filed by the appellants-plaintiffs and thus no substantial grounds are available for any interference in the impugned judgment passed by the Courts below. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. The substantial question of law point No.1; it is apparent that both the Courts below in the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that the present civil suit is barred as per the provisions of section 57 of the MPLRC and this Court is to see whether the approach of the Courts below is legal or not. It will be useful to quote the provisions of section 57 of MPLRC which is as under: "57. It will be useful to quote the provisions of section 57 of MPLRC which is as under: "57. State ownership in all lands -- (1) All lands belong to the State Government and it is hereby declared that all such lands, including standing and flowing water, mines, quarries, minerals and forests reserved or not, and all rights in the sub-soil of any land are the property of the State Government: Provided that nothing in this section shall, save as otherwise provided in this Code, be deemed to affect any rights of any person subsisting at the coming into force of this Code in any such property. (2) Where a dispute arises between the State Government and any person in respect of any right under sub-section (1) such dispute shall be decided by the Sub-divisional officer. (3) Any person aggrieved by any order passed under sub-section (2) may institute a civil suit to contest the validity of the order within a period of One year from the date of such order. (3-a) (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) no Civil Court shall, in a civil suit instituted under sub-section (3) on or after 24th October, 1983, by order of temporary injunction disturb the person to whom possession is restored under section 250 if such person furnishes a reliable surety to re-compensate the aggrieved party against any loss in case the civil Court grants a decree in favour of the aggrieved party: Provided that no surety shall be required to be furnished by a member of a tribe declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub-section (6) of section 165; (b) Where a civil Court by an order of temporary injunction disturbed the person referred to in clause (a) on or after 24th October, 1983 but before the publication of Revenue Department's Notification No. 1-70- Vll-N2-83, dated 4th January, 1984 such order shall abate on such publication and the Tahsildar shall restore possession to a person who is disturbed by such order. (4) Where a civil suit has been instituted under sub-section (3) against any order such order ahsll not be subjected to appear or revision." 8. (4) Where a civil suit has been instituted under sub-section (3) against any order such order ahsll not be subjected to appear or revision." 8. On perusal of the aforesaid provisions of section 57 it is apparent that all lands are deemed to be the land belonging to the State Government and if any dispute arises for the ownership of the concerning land between the State and the private party then it is provided that the person who is claiming any right on the land concerned shall first approach to the SDO as provided under section 57 (2) of the MPLRC and after passing of the order by the concerning SDO the person aggrieved may institute a Civil Suit before the competent civil Court under the provisions of section 57 (3) of the Code. 9. The Full Bench of this Court distinguished the aforesaid provisions of section 57 in the aforesaid decision in State of M.P v. Balveer Singh (supra) and answered after detailed discussion came to the conclusion held in para 66 and 67 as under: "66. In view of what has been discussed and noticed hereinabove, the questions referred to for consideration are answered as follows: Question No. (1) - The "right" contemplated under section 57 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 is a right other than the cultivatory right in respect of the land as defined under section 2 (1) (k) which stands secured in favour of a Bhumiswami, occupancy tenants or a Government lessee as defined under the said Code and this right has to be taken to be confined to the proprietary rights including those rights which vested in the State by operation of law under the enactments in force prior to the coming into effect of the aforesaid Code. Question No. (2) - There can be no distinction as to the forum with respect to the rights of Bhumiswami acquired after coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the Bhumiswami rights acquired on the basis of pre-existing rights. Question No. (3) - The detem1ination of question of Bhumiswami right lies within the province of the civil Court excepting the cases falling within the ambit of those specified under section 257 of the Code. Question No. (3) - The detem1ination of question of Bhumiswami right lies within the province of the civil Court excepting the cases falling within the ambit of those specified under section 257 of the Code. Question No. (4) - The provisions of the Indian Limitation Act will have application only to the extent permissible under section 29 of the said Act and where special period of limitation is prescribed under the provisions of the Land Revenue Code, the same shall prevail over the limitation prescribed under the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and further the extinguishment of the right under section 27 of the Limitation Act will not automatically result in the accrual of Bhumiswami rights or any superior right on the ground of adverse possession. 67. The question referred to in Second Appeal No. 165 of 1998 is answered as follows - "A civil suit is directly maintainable in respect of the disputes with the State other than the disputes contemplated under section 57 (1) of the Code as indicated in our answer to question No. 1 referred to hereinabove. " 10. Thus, in the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of this Court clearly laid down that if the dispute with regard to the land which is not covered under the provision of section 57 (1) of the Code in that case a Civil Suit is directly maintainable in respect of the dispute with the State and the private party. On perusal of the pleadings of the appellants-plaintiffs in the plaint it is clear that the disputed land is used by the plaintiffs not as agricultural land. Some construction had already been done by the plaintiffs on the aforesaid disputed land and this land has been used for the SAF Btn. There are certain barracks for the residence of the constables are there on the land concerned. Therefore, in the present civil suit admittedly the right of cultivation of any party is not in dispute and similarly this land is also not covered as described under section 57 (1) of the Code. In view of that as laid down by this Court in the aforesaid Full Bench decision in State of M.P. v. Balveer Singh (supra) a civil suit can lie directly in the civil Court without approaching the SDO as provided under section 57 (2) of the MPLRC. 11. In view of that as laid down by this Court in the aforesaid Full Bench decision in State of M.P. v. Balveer Singh (supra) a civil suit can lie directly in the civil Court without approaching the SDO as provided under section 57 (2) of the MPLRC. 11. It is also to be noted that both the Courts below have passed the concerning order and after passing of that order the Full Bench decision of this Court came up wherein the law has been laid down for directly filing of the Civil Suit of this nature in the civil Court. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid decision of this Court the plaintiffs-appellants can file directly the Civil Suit before the civil Court without approaching the Sub-Divisional Officer under the provisions of section 57 (2) of the Code. 12.In view of the aforesaid Full Bench decision of this Court the finding recorded by the Courts below for not having jurisdiction to hear the civil suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs appears to be illegal and improper and liable to be illegal and improper and liable to be set aside. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion my conclusion on the point No.1 is that the both the Courts below have wrongly held that the suit is not maintainable and jurisdiction of the civil Court is not available to the plaintiff without compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 57 (2) of the MPLRC. Therefore, the aforesaid finding recorded by the Courts below is liable to be set aside. 14. Point No.2: This Court has also formulated the second point that the appellate Court has rejected an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by the appellants for the alleged compliance of section 57 (2) of MPLRC but at the time of arguments it is submitted that the present plaintiffs-appellants has not filed any proceeding under section 57 (2) of the MPLRC before the SDO but the respondents-plaintiffs have filed an application under section 250 of the MPLRC before the Tahsildar for the relief of possession of the disputed land against the present appellant-plaintiff and that proceeding went up to the Board of Revenue and that proceeding cannot be deemed to be the proceeding under section 57 (2) of the MPLRC. Hence, in my considered opinion the rejection of the aforesaid application by the lower appellate Court for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC does not appear to be erroneous. Therefore, that part of the order is not liable to be set aside and it also not affect the merits of the case. 15. During the Course of the arguments the learned counsel for the respondents also submit that dispute in between the parties had also proceeded before the Revenue Authorities under the provisions of section 250 of MPLRC for relief of possession. Therefore, the present suit is not maintainable as barred under the provisions of section 257 (x) of the MPLRC. In the trial Court for this issue No.6 has been framed with regard to the non-maintainability of the civil suit under the provisions of section 257 (x) of the MPLRC and the trial Court itself came to the conclusion that the suit is maintainable and there is no bar of section 257 (x) of the MPLRC and the objection of defendant with regard to the aforesaid lack of jurisdiction has been rejected by the trial Court and the respondents have not challenged the aforesaid finding of the trial Court before the First appellate Court. Hence, this finding given by the trial Court cannot be challenged before this Court in this Second Appeal. 16. Moreover it is also apparent that the present civil suit has been filed on the basis of declaration of title and certainly the Revenue Courts cannot decide the title of the parties concerned. The title suit can only be filed before the civil Court as is held by this Court also in the decision of Nathu v. Dilbande Hussain [ 1964 JLJ 707 = AIR 1967 MP 14 ] wherein in para 8 the Division Bench of this Court held as under: "By sub-section (2) of section 250 it is no doubt provided that the Tahsildar shall decide the application of the Bhurniswami for possession after making an enquiry into the respective claims of the parties. The enquiry that is contemplated is of a summary nature. The enquiry that is contemplated is of a summary nature. In disposing of an application under section 250 the Tahsildar has no doubt to decide whether the person complaining of dispossession or of continued unauthorized possession on the part of some one is or is not a Bhumiswami and whether he has been dispossessed or whether there has been unauthorized and illegal continuation of possession of the land by the person complained against. But the question, both as regards title of the Bhumiswami to the land and of possession, are not finally decided by the Tahsildar. Even after the Revenue Court makes an order under section 250, the aggrieved party has the remedy of filing of civil suit for establishing his title to the land and for obtaining possession of the same. The decision of the Revenue Court cannot operate as res judicata in the civil suit; nor can section 257 (x) of the Code stand in the way of the institution of a suit for possession of a land founded on title." 17. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, it is clear that whatever order passed in the proceeding under section 250 of MPLRC the present civil suit is not barred under the provisions of section 257 (x) of the MPLRC. 18. Same view has also been taken by Full Brnch of this Court in Ramgopal v. Chetu [ 1976 JLJ 278 = AIR 1976 MP 160 ] and the decision of Full Bench of this Court is found to be good law by Hon 'ble apex Court in Rohini Prasad v. Kasturchand [2000 RN 141 = AIR 2000 SC 1283 ] and it is held that after passing of the order under section 250 of the MPLRC the civil Court is having jurisdiction to hear the matter on the basis of title of the parties concerned and held: "Determination of the question of title is the province of the civil Court and unless there is any express provision to the contrary, exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil Court cannot be assumed or implied." 19. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court reported in State of Kerala v. M.K. Kunhikannan Namhiar [(1996) I SCC 435] wherein the Hon'ble apex Court dealt with the provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and held that even a void order passed by any authority in between the parties will in fact be effective in between the parties until it is successfully avoided or challenged before the higher forum. The facts of the aforesaid case are not similar to the present case. In the present case only in a summary proceeding under section 250 of the MPLRC has been decided and the present Civil Suit has been filed by the plaintiff on the basis of title. Hence, this cannot be deemed to be barred by any provisions of MPLRC. Therefore, the objection raised by the counsel for the respondents is not sustainable and which is rightly negatived by the trial Court also. In view of the decision of the apex Court in Rohini Prasad v. Kasturchand (supra) the present suit filed by the plaintiffs on the basis of title is maintainable in the civil Court. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, both the Courts below committed jurisdictional error by holding the present civil suit barred by jurisdiction. Therefore, the judgment passed by both the Courts below are liable to be set aside and original civil suit filed by the present appellants-plaintiffs is liable to be remanded back to the trial Court for fresh decision on merits. 21. Resultantly, the appeal preferred by the appellant State succeeds and allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the Courts below are set aside and the original civil suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh decision on merits. No orders as to costs.