JUDGMENT : Sujoy Paul, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to assail the order of Board of Revenue dated 7.6.2004 passed in Case No. 355/PBR/02 (Annexure P-1). This matter has a chequered history. The respondents herein have fought a long drawn battle in the corridors of Revenue Courts. The respondents (now octogenarian) have initiated the proceeding in the year 1962. 2. The facts as narrated in the impugned order are that the respondents were patta holders of 95 bigha 15 biswa land which was given to them by the Zamindars before the abolition of the Zamindari. The respondents were in continuous possession of the entire land of 95 bigha 17 biswa. However, the Patwari in his record recorded that 25 bigha 1 biswa is being encroached by the respondents. The respondents, with a view to seek correction preferred an application before the Tahsildar court on 14.1.1962. The Tahsildar rejected the said application on 13.9.1966. The respondents preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) which was rejected on 29.7.1967. The respondents preferred appeal against this order before the Additional Commissioner. The said case was registered as Case No. 18/67-68. The appellate authority by order dated 30.7.1968 partly allowed the appeal and ordered that as per Khasra of Samvat 2007, the status of land of appellants therein/present respondents is mentioned as "Khud-kasht", hence as per Government memorandum dated 7.7.1961, the said land can be settled in favour of the present respondents. Accordingly, Tahsildar was ordered to inspect the land and act in accordance with the said memorandum dated 7.7.1961. 3. The Tahsildar in obedience of order dated 30.7.1968 inspected the land on 30.4.1983. He prepared the map and identified the land of the appellants. He found that the disputed land was Khud-kasht land of the Zamindar. The said land is situated within the fencing and is a compact area. He opined that in the light of memorandum dated 7.7.1961, the entire land except land belonging to the well situated in Survey No. 611, 579 and 567, can be settled in favour of present respondents. The said recommendation dated 30.4.1983 (Annexure P-5) was sent to Additional Collector. The said land is situated within the fencing and is a compact area. He opined that in the light of memorandum dated 7.7.1961, the entire land except land belonging to the well situated in Survey No. 611, 579 and 567, can be settled in favour of present respondents. The said recommendation dated 30.4.1983 (Annexure P-5) was sent to Additional Collector. In turn, the Additional Collector on 15.11.1984 remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar with a note that the settlement of the land should be done as per the memorandum dated 7.7.1961 and not as per the Revenue Books Circular (RBC). On remand, the Tahsildar reported that the land in question is surrounded by other lands of the respondents and it is a grove land. Subject to payment of Rs. 1181/- as a premium amount, he recommended for settlement of this land in favour of the respondents. This recommendation is dated 11.2.1986. 4. The Additional Collector by his order dated 20.7.1987 closed the matter on the ground that as per Government memorandum dated 23.6.1975, now Zamindars cannot be given 20% land. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the respondents filed a first appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner by order dated 30.10.1995 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to Additional Collector to rehear the parties. The Additional Commissioner agreed with the order dated 27.7.1998 that the memorandum dated 23.6.1975 is not applicable in the present case. On the contrary, the memorandum dated 7.7.1961 is applicable. However, the respondents case was dismissed on the ground that they were unable to prove their possession on disputed survey numbers as on Samvat 2007. The respondents preferred the first appeal which was dismissed by Additional Commissioner on 12.11.2001 (Annexure P-2). This order was assailed before the Revenue Board in Appeal No. 355/PBR-2002. The Board by impugned order dated 7.6.2004 allowed the appeal. 5. Aforesaid factual backdrop makes it clear that the dispute was originally generated on 14.1.1962 when an application for correction of entry was filed by the respondents. This is unfortunate that this matter could not be settled in last about 53 years. 6. Mrs. Sangeeta Pachori, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the petitioner-State, criticized the order and contended that the order of Board of Revenue is illegal and contrary to the record. The respondents have failed to submit any evidence and Khasra entries of Samvat 2007 or 1997. 6. Mrs. Sangeeta Pachori, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the petitioner-State, criticized the order and contended that the order of Board of Revenue is illegal and contrary to the record. The respondents have failed to submit any evidence and Khasra entries of Samvat 2007 or 1997. They failed to show that their land was mentioned as grove land. As per circular dated 23.6.1975, only grove land can be settled in the name of Zamindar or other persons having their possession. The possession of respondents is of no meaning unless the same is shown in Revenue record as grove land. She relied on Naib Tahsildar's report dated 30.4.1983 (Annexure P-5) to contend that in the disputed land "sade" and "maid" is there and it is a compact area. As per this report, learned Dy. G.A. submits that the land cannot be settled in the name of the respondents. Board has committed an error to settle the land in their favour. 7. It is further contended that in revenue record, the land in dispute is entered as Government land. Once land is entered in revenue records as Government land and State was in possession of the land which is evident from Khasra entries Annexure P-9, there was no occasion for the Board to issue direction for settlement of this land and declare the respondents as Bhoomi Swami of the said land. It is further urged that the land is a very valuable land which has been erroneously directed to be settled in favour of the respondents. It is contended that the Board has erred in relying on the report of Tahsildar which was given as per order dated 7.7.1968. However, by circular dated 23.6.1975, the State Government made it clear that only grove land can be record in the name of persons in possession on the basis of entry of Samvat 2007. In Samvat 2007, the respondents were shown in possession of the land but entries do not show such possession on Khud-kasht or grove land. It is submitted that the authorities below have rightly rejected the appeals of the respondents by holding that they failed to prove their possession in said manner on the disputed land. She submits that there was no occasion for the Board to declare the respondents as Bhoomi Swami. During the course of argument, she relied on various provisions of MB Zamindari Abolition Act Samvat, 2008. She submits that there was no occasion for the Board to declare the respondents as Bhoomi Swami. During the course of argument, she relied on various provisions of MB Zamindari Abolition Act Samvat, 2008. In support of her contention, she relied on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2001) 6 SCC 496 (Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi and Ors). She also relied on 2005 (2) M.P.H.T. 449 (State of M.P. v. Ram Singh). She submits that on the basis of revenue entries, it is clear that the respondents could not make out a case for settlement of land in their favour. 8. Per contra, Shri K.N. Gupta, learned senior counsel supported the order passed by the Court below. He also relied on various definitions and provisions mentioned in Kanoonmal Samvat, 1983 (Kanoonmal), Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, Samvat, 2008 (Zamindari Act), Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act Samvat, 2008 (Jagir Act) and Madhya Bharat Land Revenue Tenancy Act (Tenancy Act). He submits that the respondents are tenants of proprietor. As per Section 38 read with Section 5 of Zamindari Act, the respondents have a valuable right to get the lands settled in their name. He submits that the respondents fulfill the requirement of settlement in their name as per the provisions of the said acts. Reliance is placed on the revenue entries filed along with the return. It is contended that crucial date is 2.10.1951 and before 12 years from the said date, the respondents are in possession on the land being patta holders of the land. He submits that the finding of fact given by the Board of Revenue in the impugned order is based on evidence. This Court is not obliged to sit as an appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence. No perversity is established and, therefore, no interference is warranted in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution. In support of this contention, he relied on AIR 1984 SC 38 (Mohd Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim), (2010) 9 SCC 385 (Jai Singh & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.), 2014 (3) M.P.H.T. 306 (Kamla Bai v. Nathuram Sharma and others), (2014) 6 SCC 434 (Ishwarlal Mohanlal Thakkar v. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. and Another). 9. In support of this contention, he relied on AIR 1984 SC 38 (Mohd Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim), (2010) 9 SCC 385 (Jai Singh & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.), 2014 (3) M.P.H.T. 306 (Kamla Bai v. Nathuram Sharma and others), (2014) 6 SCC 434 (Ishwarlal Mohanlal Thakkar v. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. and Another). 9. Shri Gupta, learned senior counsel further contends that in view of findings of Tahsildar in his report dated 30.4.1983 and 11.2.1986, it is clear that the land in question is a "grove" land. He relied on AIR 1968 SC 494 (Sardar Chandorjirao Angre v. State of Madhya Pradesh), 1998 (1) M.P.L.J. 488 (State of M.P. And another v. Radha Krishan Singh and another.) in this regard. In the light of these judgments, it is contended that the land in question is a grove land and, therefore, it was rightly settled in favour of the respondents. He contends that even if particular entry in revenue record is against respondents, the previous entries are required to be seen. He relied on 1997 (II) M.P.J.R. 306 (Om Prakash v. State of M.P.) in this regard. He urged that respondents have acquired the status of pacca tenant under Section 38 of Zamindari Act. This status is acquired by the respondents automatically by operation of the provisions of the Act. He relied on 1971 JLJ 377 (Bhujbal Singh & others v. Arjun Singh & another) in this regard. Reliance is also placed on 1967 RN 20 (Karnal Singh & Others v. Anandlal). By taking assistance from 1992 MPLJ 598 (Ujagar Singh Khyal Singh and others v. Omdar Singh since deceased by L.Rs. Padam Singh and others), it is argued that the tenants on actual possession as well as on constructive possession on the date of vesting are entitled to be treated as pacca tenant. 1991 RN 61 (Churamani and another v. Shri Ramadhar and others) is relied upon to contend that Patwari has no right to make entry in any manner. Entry can be made by order of competent revenue officer. Reliance is placed on 1991 RN 61 (Churamani and another v. Shri Ramadhar and others) and 1997 RN 71 (Harihar Singh and Others v. Janki Singh and Another). This contention is based on 1997 RN 141 (Ramcharan and others v. State of M.P. and others). Entry can be made by order of competent revenue officer. Reliance is placed on 1991 RN 61 (Churamani and another v. Shri Ramadhar and others) and 1997 RN 71 (Harihar Singh and Others v. Janki Singh and Another). This contention is based on 1997 RN 141 (Ramcharan and others v. State of M.P. and others). The tenant cannot be dispossessed without the order of competent Court. This contention is advanced on the basis of 1984 RN 137 (Hussain Bhai v. Harakchand). It is urged that khasra entries cannot be changed without opportunity to the interested person. Reliance is placed on 1988 RN 187 (Ram Singh & Ors. v. State of M.P. & ors.),AIR 1980 696 (Meharban Singh v. Bhagwant Singh). Mrs. Pachori, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the original revenue record of Samvat, 1997 and 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents prepared two separate charts on the basis of said revenue record. The said charts are marked as Annexure A & B. Registry is directed to keep these Annexures carefully in the present matter. 10. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. It is noteworthy that in this case this Court passed a detailed order on 31.10.2014. This Court opined that impugned order dated 7.6.2004 passed by the Board is based on an earlier order dated 30.7.1968 and Tahsildar's report dated 11.2.1986 (para 6 & 8 of the impugned order Annexure P-1). The said order and report of Tahsildar are not filed along with the petition, nor the same were available in the record of Board of Revenue. Thus, this Court directed that petitioner-State being custodian of the record must produce the order dated 30.7.1968 and Tahsildar's report dated 11.2.1986. Thereafter, on various occasions adjournments were sought for to produce the said record. Later-on, an affidavit of Collector, Gwalior dated 17.12.2014 was filed contending that the said documents are not traceable. It is further contended in the affidavit that the record of Appeal No. 16/67-68 (Radhika Prasad and others v. State of M.P. And others) was destroyed on 9.5.1998. 13. Before dealing with the rival contentions advanced, it is apposite to refer certain relevant definitions. It is further contended in the affidavit that the record of Appeal No. 16/67-68 (Radhika Prasad and others v. State of M.P. And others) was destroyed on 9.5.1998. 13. Before dealing with the rival contentions advanced, it is apposite to refer certain relevant definitions. The khud-kasht is defined in Zamindari Act as under:- "Khud-kasht" means land cultivated by the Zamindar himself or through employees or hired labourers and includes sir land; 2(e) of same Act defines Pacca tenant as under:- "(e) "Pacca tenant" means Pacca tenant as defined in clause (vii) of section 54 of the United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa (Madhya Bharat) Revenue Administration and Ryotwari Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007; Occupied land is defined as under:-"Occupied land" means land held immediately before the date of vesting of proprietary right in the State under section 3, in ex-proprietary, Pukhta Maurusi, Mamuli Maurusi or Gair Maurusi tenure or land held by sub-tenants or tenants of a sub-tenant or land held as khud-kasht or land comprised in a dwelling house together with any courtyard, attached garden, trees standings in such courtyard and outbuildings and includes any out-building used for purposes connected with agriculture or horticulture and nay tank appurtenant to such dwelling-house;" 14. A plain reading of definition of "pacca tenant" makes it clear that the Legislature has borrowed the definition of "pacca tenant" from Section 54 of Madhya Bharat Revenue Administration and Roytwari Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007. The definitions of pacca tenant in the said Act reads as under:- "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 into force or who may in future be duly recognised as such by a competent authority; 15. In the present case, this Court is concerned with the right of the respondents about settlement of land in their name on enforcement of Zamindari Act, Samvat 2008. 16. The Additional Collector in its order dated 17.7.1998 (Annexure P-3) opined that the D.O. Letter dated 23.6.1975 (Annexure P-6) is not applicable in the matter. However, after perusing the record, he opined that in the base year, i.e., Samvat, 2007 the respondents' land is not recorded as "grove" land. 16. The Additional Collector in its order dated 17.7.1998 (Annexure P-3) opined that the D.O. Letter dated 23.6.1975 (Annexure P-6) is not applicable in the matter. However, after perusing the record, he opined that in the base year, i.e., Samvat, 2007 the respondents' land is not recorded as "grove" land. Thus, as per Section 5(a & b) of Zamindari Act, the name of respondents cannot be recorded as Bhoomi Swami. The Additional Commissioner in his order dated 12.11.2001 (Annexure P-2) held that the order dated 17.7.1998 is justifiable. Respondents' land is not mentioned as "grove" land and they could not produce any documentary evidence to show that in the base year-Samvat 2007 it is recorded as "grove" land. Hence no interference was made. In the impugned order, the Board of Revenue opined in favour of the petitioner by framing the question that whether the disputed land was recorded in Samvat 2007 as "Khud-kasht" in the name of appellants? Whether the said land was vested in the Government and whether it can be settled in the name of appellants? In para 9 Board gave findings in favour of the present respondents for following reasons:- "i) As per the available evidence, it is mentioned that in the "Bandobast" name of appellants are mentioned under the head "Gair Maurusi" for a period of one year. ii) In the revenue record/'Khasra' the land in question is mentioned as appellants' "Khud-kasht" land. Additional Commissioner in his order dated 30.7.1968 found that in "Khasra" Samvat, 2007, the names of appellants are mentioned in relation to land in question. iii) In obedience of order of Additional Commissioner dated 30.7.1968, Naib Tahsildar and Tahsildar compared the land record of Samvat 1997 and 2007 and found it as correct. iv) This fact is totally proved that appellants were in possession as "Khud-kasht" in base year Samvat, 2007. Being a "Khud-kasht" land, it is not vested in Government. v) As per Government's memorandum dated 7.7.1961, the land which is "grove" and is in possession of Ex-Zamindar can be settled in his name subject to payment of prescribed premium. vi) The Naib Tahsildar on spot verification found that the land in question is a compact block and surrounded by wire fencing." 17. The basic question raised by the petitioners is whether this finding of Board of Revenue is in consonance with the provisions of Zamindari Act? vi) The Naib Tahsildar on spot verification found that the land in question is a compact block and surrounded by wire fencing." 17. The basic question raised by the petitioners is whether this finding of Board of Revenue is in consonance with the provisions of Zamindari Act? The said findings are also challenged by contending that the same are perverse in nature. 18. Before dealing with this aspect, it is apt to quote Section 4 & 5 of Zamindari Act, which read as under:-- 4. Consequence by the vesting of an estate in the State.--(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act when the notification under Section 3 in respect of any area has been published in the Gazette, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract, grant or document or in any other law for the time being in force, the consequences as hereinafter set forth shall from the beginning of the date specified in such notification (hereinafter referred to as the date of vesting) ensure, namely :-- (a) all rights, title and interest of the proprietor in such area, including land (cultivable, barren or Bir), forest, trees, fisheries, wells (other than private wells), tanks, ponds, water channels, ferries, pathways, village-sites, hats and bazars and mela-grounds and in all sub-soil, including rights, or any, in mines and minerals, whether being worked or not shall cease and be vested in the Statefree from all encumbrances; (b) all grants and confirmation or title of or to land in the property so vesting or of or to any right or privilege in respect of such property or land revenue in respect thereof shall, whether liable to presumption or not, determine; ..................... .................... (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the sub-section (1), the proprietor shall continue to remain in possession of his Khud-Kasht land, so recorded in the annual village papers before the date of vesting. 5. .................... (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the sub-section (1), the proprietor shall continue to remain in possession of his Khud-Kasht land, so recorded in the annual village papers before the date of vesting. 5. Private wells, trees, buildings, house sites and enclosures.--(a) All open enclosures used for agricultural or domestic purposes and in continuous possession (which includes possession of a former proprietor) for twelve years immediately before the 1st of January, 1951, all open house sites purchased for consideration, all buildings, places of worship, wells, situated in and trees standing on lands included in such enclosures of house-sites or land appertaining to such buildings or places of worships within the limits of a village-site belonging to or held by the outgoing proprietor or any other person shall continue to belong to or be held by such proprietor or other person as the case may be, and the land thereof, with the areas appurtenant thereto shall be settled with him by the Government on such terms and conditions as it may determine. (b) All private wells and buildings on occupied land belonging to or held by the outgoing proprietor or any other person shall continue to belong to or be held by such proprietor or other person. (c) All trees standing on land comprised in a Khudkasht or homestead and belonging to or held by the outgoing proprietor or any other person shall continue to belong to or be held by such proprietor or other person. (d) All trees standing on occupied land other than lands comprised in Khudkashtor home-stead and belonging to or held by a person other than the outgoing proprietor shall continue to belong to or be held by such person. (e) All tanks situate on occupied land and belonging yo or held by the outgoing propriet6or or any other person shall continue to belong to or be held by such proprietor or other person. (f) All groves wherever situate and recorded in village papers in the name of outgoing proprietor or any other person shall continue to belong to or be held by such proprietor or such other person and the land under such grove shall be settled with such proprietor or such other person by the Government on such terms and conditions as it may determine. (Emphasis supplied) 19. (Emphasis supplied) 19. A plain reading of Section 4 makes it clear that it begins with the words "save as otherwise provided in this Act". This Section makes it clear that when the notification under Section 3 in respect of any area has been published in the Gazette then, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract, grant or document or in any other law for the time being in force, the consequences which are set forth shall ensue. The date of such consequence would be date specified in the said notification. Admittedly, notification was issued on 25.6.1951. Section 4 is worded in such a manner which makes it clear that it will have overriding effect on any existing grant, contract, document or any other law. It only saves such rights which are otherwise saved or provided in this Act. Section 4(a) makes it clear that all rights, title and interest of the proprietor in relevant area including land, trees, wells shall cease and be vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Section 5 provides that all open enclosures used for agricultural or domestic purposes and in continuous possession for 12 years immediately before the 1st of January, 1951 are saved. It is saved in favour of outgoing proprietor "or any other person". 20. Section 5 (b) makes it clear that all private wells and building on occupied land belonging to or held by the outgoing proprietor or any other person shall continue to belong to or be held by such proprietor. Clause (c) prescribes that all trees standing in "Khud-kasht" or homestead land shall continue to belong to proprietor or other person. Clause (f) deals with "grove" and legislature in no uncertain terms made it clear that all groves wherever situate and recorded in village papers in the name of the outgoing proprietor or any other person shall continue to belong to him/them. 21. In the opinion of this Court, clause (f) makes it clear that the entry of "grove" must be recorded in village papers in the name of proprietor/any other person. However, the relevant entries shown to this Court from village papers do not reflect that there exist any such entry in the revenue record as "grove". Section 4(2) is an exception to sub section (1) of section 4. However, the relevant entries shown to this Court from village papers do not reflect that there exist any such entry in the revenue record as "grove". Section 4(2) is an exception to sub section (1) of section 4. It gives a right to the proprietor to continue to remain in possession of his "Khud-kasht" land only when it is "so recorded" in revenue record. 22. This Court in 1971 JLJ 577 (Khuman Singh v. Dhan Singh & Ors.), 1988 MPLJ 69 (Nand Kishore and Others v. Dabole and Others) and 1997 RN 76 (Sadashivrao v. Purushottamrao and Others) took this view that a land can be treated as "Khud-kasht" only when it is so recorded in the village papers. In (1999) 4 SCC 11 (Mishrilal (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Dhirendra Nath (Dead) by L.Rs. and Others), the Apex Court opined that the Zamindari Act has been engrafted into the statute-book for acquisition of rights of proprietors in villages, muhals, chaks or blocks settled on zamindari system. In (2004) 5 SCC 130 (Gorabai (Smt) and Others v. Ummed Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. and Others), the Apex Court opined about the legislative intent for introducing Zamindari Act. Para 11 reads as under:- "We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the provisions of the Act. The provisions of the Act read with its preamble clearly show the legislative intent to abolish zamindari system and establish direct relationship of the tiller with the State. The proprietors, zamindars or malguzars by whatever names they were called in different regions, were "intermediaries" and their rights as intermediaries were taken away. The proprietors were, however, allowed to retain such land which were in their personal cultivation and recorded as " Khudkasht ". The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act have, therefore, to be interpreted keeping in view the above aim and object of the Act. In Mishrilal (supra), the Apex Court opined as under:- "It, therefore, appears that there is a categorical expression or statutory intent that the land which has not been recorded as khudkasht land is liable to vest in the State. In Mishrilal (supra), the Apex Court opined as under:- "It, therefore, appears that there is a categorical expression or statutory intent that the land which has not been recorded as khudkasht land is liable to vest in the State. Conversely thus, the intent of the legislature is loud enough to indicate that while zamindari or intermediary interest was being abolished, due care has been taken to protect the khudkasht land and allow the subsisting interest of the Zamindar to continue so as to enable the Zamindar either to cultivate himself or through employees or hired labourers and in that event the same would be out of contemplation of the statute. The definition section as noticed above and in particular the definition of the word "proprietor" means a person as respects a village, muhal or land settled on zamindari system owning whether in trust or for his own benefit, such village, muhal or land. The definition of "khudkasht" under Section 2(c) referring therein to land cultivated by the Zamindar himself or through employees or hired labourers, read with Section 4 (2), makes it abundantly clear that Section 2 (a) cannot but mean that it is the Zamindar or proprietor only who has been allowed by the statute to obtain the benefit." (Emphasis Supplied) 23. Thus, Section 4(2) gives protection only to zamindar or proprietor. Admittedly, the respondents herein are neither zamindars, nor proprietors. 24. In the opinion of this Court, Section 4 & 5 needs to be interpreted by taking into account the object of the Act. The intention of law makers is to protect such land which is in the personal use of the Zamindar himself, his employees, hired labourers or any other person. Section 5(a) therefore, employs the words "used for agricultural or domestic purpose". Thus, said land/open enclosures which are used for "agricultural or domestic purpose and are in continuous possession for 12 years" are saved. The words " any other person" were considered by the Supreme Court in (1972) 1 SCC 402 (State of M.P. and Ors. v. Sardar D.K. Jadhav). It was in the context of Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, (Act 28 of 1951). In para 25, the Apex Court opined that there is no controversy that at the material date, the occupied lands on which tanks are situated belonged to or were held by the Jagirdar or any other person. v. Sardar D.K. Jadhav). It was in the context of Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, (Act 28 of 1951). In para 25, the Apex Court opined that there is no controversy that at the material date, the occupied lands on which tanks are situated belonged to or were held by the Jagirdar or any other person. The expression " any other person" is comprehensive enough to take in the persons who were holding the land on one or other of the tenures enumerated in sub-clauses (a) to (d) of Section 2(1)(ix) of the Abolition Act. Whatever may be the extent of the tanks in the possession of the respondent, as his khudkasht or homestead and in the possession of the tenure-holders, the position ultimately is, that the entire extent of the tanks is in "occupied land" belonging to or held by Jagirdar or any other person. 25. In the present case, two charts are submitted by the petitioners and respondents respectively. Learned counsel for the parties contended that these charts were prepared on the basis of original revenue record produced before this court. As per the chart presented by Mrs. Pachauri, learned Dy. G.A. for State, the position of land reflected from the original revenue record of base year Samvat 2007 shows as under:- "Survey No. 520, status Survey No. 522, status Survey No. 524, status Survey No. 529, status Survey No. 530, status Survey No. 531, status Survey No. 537, status Survey No. 538, status Survey No. 539, status Survey No. 540, status Survey No. 541, status Survey No. 542, status Survey No. 543, status Survey No. 545, status Survey No. 549, status Survey No. 550, status Survey No. 560, status Survey No. 561, status Survey No. 562, status Survey No. 564, status Survey No. 567, status Survey No. 568, status Survey No. 569, status Survey No. 572, status Survey No. 573, status Survey No. 576, status Survey No. 580, status Survey No. 582, status Survey No. 584, status Survey No. 587, status Survey No. 589, status Survey No. 591, status Survey No. 592, status Survey No. 593, status Survey No. 597, status Survey No. 600, status Survey No. 606, status Survey No. 608, status Survey No. 609, status Survey No. 610, status Survey No. 611, status Survey No. 612, status Survey No. 615, status " 26. Shri R.S. Dhakad, Advocate for the respondents prepared another chart on the basis of revenue record. As per this chart, the status of land is as under:- "Survey Nos. 520, 522, 523, 524, 529, 530, 531, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 542, 543, 545, 547, 549, 550, 560, 561, 562, 564, 567, 568, 569, 572, 573, 576, 580, 582, 584, 587, 589, 591, 592, 593, 597, 606, 609, 610, 611, 612, 615 are shown in Samvat 1997 in the name of respondent Radhika Prasad / period is shown as 11 years. 27. In view of aforementioned nature of entries in the revenue record, the question is whether the respondents are entitled to settle the land in their favour? In 1987 JLJ 301 (Daulat Singh v. State of M.P. And others) this Court opined that entry "Kans", "Padti Kans" cannot be treated as Khudkasht land, such land vests in Govt. In 2005 (2) MPLJ 292 (State of M.P. v. Ramsingh) this Court opined that entry "Padti Kadeem" cannot be treated as Khudkasht land. In 1997 RN 330 (HC) (Ram Singh v. Ramlal and others) this Court opined that grass land, Beed, Vahan, Padat Kadeem cannot be treated as Khudkasht land. The said land will be treated as Government land. The same view is taken in 93 RN 217 (H.C) (Kanhaiayalal and others v. State of M.P. And others), 1992 RN 378 (State of M.P. v. Kundan Singh) and 1995 RN 57(State of M.P. v. Kundan Singh) this Court opined that "Shamil Jot" cannot be treated as Khudkasht land. In 1997 RN 330 (Ram Singh and Ors. Ramlal and Ors.) this Court held that uncultivated grass land is not covered as Khudkasht land. This Court decided that "Banjar Land" belongs to State. In 1985 RN 374(Bahadur Singh v. State of M.P.) this Court concluded that "Padti Kadeem" and "Alava Jot" cannot be treated as Khudkasht land. In 1971 JLJ 577 (Khuman Singh v. Dhan Singh & Ors.) a Division Bench of this Court held that land described as "Alwa Jot" is not under personal cultivation. This land vests in the Govt. It was further held that "Padti Jadid" means land which remained uncultivated for more than 03 years. 28. In 1995 RN 159 (State of M.P. v. Kashiram and Ors.) this Court considered the scope of Section 4(2)of the Act. This land vests in the Govt. It was further held that "Padti Jadid" means land which remained uncultivated for more than 03 years. 28. In 1995 RN 159 (State of M.P. v. Kashiram and Ors.) this Court considered the scope of Section 4(2)of the Act. It was held that if three conditions are fulfilled, land can be settled in favour of the claimant. These are firstly possession is shown as Khudkasht before the date of vesting. Secondly, possession is continuous and thirdly, Khudkasht land is "so recorded" in village papers. In 1982 RN 218 (HC) (Nagar Palika, Sheopur v. Yasin Mohammad) this Court opined that open plot of Zamindari land which are not used for agricultural or domestic purpose and are not in possession for 12 years, cannot be settled in favour of the claimant. 29. The description of the land mentioned in aforesaid charts make it clear that land is not recorded as "Khudkasht land" In the light of aforesaid legal position, the finding of Board of Revenue in para 9 can now be examined. It is clear that finding of Board is incorrect inasmuch as it is mentioned that in revenue record, the land in question is mentioned as "Khudkasht". Thus, I find substantial force in the argument of the petitioner that findings of the Board are perverse in nature. The Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner have rightly held that the land in question is neither mentioned as "Khudkasht" nor there exists any entry of "grove" in the revenue record. As per Section 4(2) of Zamindari Act, the proprietor can continue to remain in possession of his Khudkasht land provided it is so recorded in annual village papers. Section 5 of said Act provides that outgoing proprietor or any other person can continue to hold the land and can get it settled with him provided such land/open enclosure is used for agricultural or domestic purpose and is in continuous possession for 12 years immediately before 1st January, 1951. Revenue Board has clearly erred in allowing the respondent's appeal. There was no material on record to show that the land in question was used for agricultural or domestic purpose and was in possession for 12 years immediately before 1st January, 1951. The subordinate revenue courts have rightly held that respondents have failed to establish the aforesaid requirement of continuous possession of 12 years. There was no material on record to show that the land in question was used for agricultural or domestic purpose and was in possession for 12 years immediately before 1st January, 1951. The subordinate revenue courts have rightly held that respondents have failed to establish the aforesaid requirement of continuous possession of 12 years. The Board's order is liable to be interfered with because it is based on so called spot inspection report of Nayab Tehsildar and Tehsildar. As per Sections 4 & 5 of Zamindari Act, said test can be satisfied if the relevant entries are mentioned in village papers/Khasra. No subsequent report or spot inspection by revenue authorities can fulfill the statutory requirement of entry in village papers prescribed under the Act. The status of land shown in chart (A) makes it clear that it is not shown as land used for agricultural or domestic purpose. Land is not shown as "Grove" land. 30. The order of Additional Commissioner dated 30.07.1968 is not produced before this Court. This Court in its order dated 31.10.2014 noticed that the order sheets of proceeding of Board of revenue indicate that in various proceedings, the Board found that complete record from the authorities below are not received. However, in order sheet dated 07.06.2004, it is mentioned that the records of the courts below be returned. Thus, this Court opined that the order sheets of Board do not throw any light as to when complete record was received. Till 25.05.2004, Board had repeatedly recorded that remaining record be summoned from the courts below. Since this Court was not satisfied that the findings given by the Board were given after perusal of the complete record, the order dated 30.06.1968 and the record of Tehsildar dated 11.02.1986 were summoned. These documents were ultimately not produced. 31. In the opinion of this Court, since dispute was pending before the Revenue Courts, it was highly improper on the part of the petitioner to destroy the record of the appellate Court. In my view, whenever a proceeding is pending in a Court of law, the authorities should not destroy the relevant record without the leave of the Court. I hope that State Government will issue necessary instructions in this regard for all the Departments to ensure that in future such careless attitude is not adopted by the authorities. 32. As analyzed above. I hope that State Government will issue necessary instructions in this regard for all the Departments to ensure that in future such careless attitude is not adopted by the authorities. 32. As analyzed above. It is clear that the land in question is neither recorded as "Khudkasht" land nor as "grove" land in the revenue record. Land is recorded in various heads which show that these enclosures/land were not used for any domestic or agricultural purpose. Thus, respondents have failed to establish that they are entitled to save or settle the land in their favour as per Sections 4(2) or 5 of Zamindari Act. 33. Section 38 (1) of Zamindari Act does not help the respondents because the settlement can be done in favour of the respondents only as per Section 4 and 5 of the said Act. 34. Shri K.N. Gupta, learned Sr. Counsel relied on certain judgments which are related with jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. This is settled in law that when order impugned suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or palpable perversity, interference under Article 227 of the Constitution can be made. As discussed above, the finding of the Board that the land in question was recorded as "Khudkasht" or "grove" land is perverse and contrary to record. Hence, said judgments are of no assistance to the respondent. Shri Gupta relied on judgment of Apex Court in Chandro Ji Rao (Supra) and Radha Krishna (Supra). In the said cases, courts opined about the meaning of word "grove". However, the said judgments are of no help to the respondents on the question of interpretation of Section 5(f) of Zamindari Act which makes it obligatory that said land must be recorded as grove land in village papers. Para 2 of the judgment of Radha Kirshna shows that in the said case, the land in question was shown in village papers as grove land. 35. The respondents have relied on the judgment of Omprakash (Supra). It is relied upon to bolster the contention that "absence of record of Samvat 2007 is not fatal". A microscopic reading of this judgment shows that respondents are mislead by head-note. This Court opined that "as a matter of fact, preponderance of judicial opinion is that record of Samvat 2007 is relevant for the purpose of determining the rights under the aforementioned statute. A microscopic reading of this judgment shows that respondents are mislead by head-note. This Court opined that "as a matter of fact, preponderance of judicial opinion is that record of Samvat 2007 is relevant for the purpose of determining the rights under the aforementioned statute. Some how or the other, this has not been placed on the court file". In para 7, this Court remanded the matter back to first appellate Court to examine the aforesaid aspect. Thus, it is clear that record of Samvat 2007 is crucial and material. This judgment provides no strength to respondent's case. 36. The judgment of Bhujbal Singh (Supra) is on the question of acquiring status of "Pucca tenant" as per Section 38 of Zamindari Act. This judgment does not deal with the right of settlement of a person who does not fulfill the requirement of Section 4 and 5 of the Zamindari Act. Karnal Singh (Supra) is also relied upon. This judgment was considered by full Bench in 1982 MPLJ 414 (Devraj v. Ram Chandra). This judgment is on the point of actual possession and constructive possession. We are dealing with the issue regarding right of settlement of respondents in revenue record. Thus, the said judgment does not provide any assistance to the respondents. Similar is the case of Ujagar Singh (Supra). It is based on aforesaid full Bench judgment in Devraj. Para 4 of this judgment shows that the question arose for consideration was regarding interpretation of Section 38. This Court in said cases did not deal with the question of settlement based on Section 4 and 5 of the Act. The judgment of Churamani (Supra) makes it clear that the entries in Khasra or land record may be presumed to be correct until contrary is proved. Case of petitioner is based on Khasra entries only. This judgment is also of no help to respondents. The judgment of Harihar Singh (Supra) has no application in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 37. On the basis of aforesaid indepth analysis, the following conclusions can be culled out:- (i) Section 4 and Section 5 of the Zamindari Act needs to be interpreted keeping in view the aim and object of the Act. (ii) The right of Zamindar, proprietor and any other person of possession or settlement can be ascertained on the basis of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. (ii) The right of Zamindar, proprietor and any other person of possession or settlement can be ascertained on the basis of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. (iii) Section 4(2) of Zamindari Act gives right to proprietor to continue on his Khudkasht land "so recorded" in village papers. (iv) Section 5 of Zamindari Act gives right to outgoing proprietor or any other person to continue to hold the land if such land/open enclosure is used for agricultural or domestic purpose, it is in continuous possession for 12 years immediately before 1st January 1951. (v) "Grove land" must be recorded in village papers under Section 5(f) of the Zamindari Act. (vi) A person can claim right of continuation of possession and settlement on the basis of entry in village papers and not on the basis of any subsequent inspection report of revenue authorities." 38. In the light of aforementioned discussion, it is clear that Board has erred in allowing the appeal of the respondent. The order of Board dated 07.06.2004 (Annexure P/1) is accordingly set aside. 39. Petition is allowed. No costs.