ORDER 1. Heard. 2. In a proceedings before Tahsildar, Amarwada, at the instance of respondents for partition of a land bearing khasra No. 83/4 admeasuring 0.012 hectare under section 178, Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code of 1959’) petitioner on the basis of Dastabardarinama dated 28.10.1970 (i.e. deed of relinquishment) and the will dated 20.4.1984 raised the objection. Tahsildar recording a finding that the land in question i.e. khasra No. 83/4 area 0.012 hectare does not find mention in relinquishment deed dated 28.1.1970 and that the will being not proved in a competent Court of jurisdiction rejected the objection. The Tahsildar, in process, also took into consideration the order dated 17.10.2005 passed in Revenue Case No. 19/A-6/2003-2004. As also the fact that a mutation in favour of the legal heirs of Lokman s/o Tirathlal vide amendment 51/177 dated 13.05.1994 was not questioned in appeal and that a civil suit No. 26-A/2007 filed by petitioner being returned by order dated 24.2.2009 on the ground of territorial jurisidiction, came to hold that the objector/petitioner having failed to establish his title, rejected the objection. 3. Aggrieved petitioner preferred a Revision under section 50 of the Code of 1959 (the question as to whether a revision would lie against such an order is not gone into and is left open). The Revisional Authority after causing hearing, dismissed the revision by impugned order. 4. The legality of these orders are questioned in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Section 178 of the Code of 1959 lays down provision regarding partition of holding. Sub-section (1) thereof stipulates that if any holding, which has been assessed for purpose of agriculture under section 59, there are more than one Bhumiswami any such Bhumiswami may apply to a Tahsildar for a partition of his share in the holding. 6. To be a Bhumiswami of an agricultural land one must fulfil the stipulations contained under section 158 (though the petitioner during course of hearing submits that the land in question is not an agriculture land as house is constructed there over-by referring to order dated 17-10-2005 -- however the petitioner failed to show any order by Competent Authority directing agricultural land in question for non-agriculture purpose, therefore, the contention regarding land being not an agriculture land is discarded). The petitioner failed to establish being a bhoomiswami under section 158 as would have any prima facie right to raise an objection in a proceeding under section 178, as would warrant any interference. 7. Petitioner, however, is at liberty to seek remedy in a civil suit and the observation herein will have no bearing therein. 8. With the said liberty, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.