ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri D. D. Bansal, Counsel for the petitioner. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 4-11-2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal in Case No. 1011/Appeal/2017-18. 2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that earlier the petitioner had filed the suit for declaration that although he has purchased Survey No. 137 but by mistake Survey No. 136 has been mentioned in the sale deed. The said civil suit was dismissed and it was held that in fact the petitioner has purchased Survey No. 136 only. 3. However it is claimed that in the year 1983 i.e., during the pendency of the said earlier civil proceedings, the forefather of the respondent dispossessed the petitioner from Survey No. 136 also, therefore, he filed the suit for recovery of possession of Survey No. 136. The said Civil suit was dismissed by the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 29-9-1992 passed in Civil Suit No. 200-A/1985. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the suit was decreed and the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court was maintained by High Court by order dated 31-1-2012 passed in Second Appeal No. 135/1994. The respondent challenged the said order by filing Civil Appeal No. 6994/2016 before the Supreme Court of India which was allowed by order dated 26-7-2016 and the judgment passed by the Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 200-A/1985 dated 29-9-1992 was restored by which the suit was dismissed on the ground of res judicata. It is submitted that now the respondent made an application for mutation of his name on Survey No. 136 which was allowed by the Tehsildar. However the said order was set aside by the Appellate Court in the appeal filed by the petitioner and subsequently the appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed by impugned order dated 4-11-2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal. It is submitted that although the suit filed by the petitioner for recovery of possession was dismissed on the ground of res judicata but in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner had purchased the Survey No. 136 therefore he would always remain the owner. 4. It is submitted that although the suit filed by the petitioner for recovery of possession was dismissed on the ground of res judicata but in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner had purchased the Survey No. 136 therefore he would always remain the owner. 4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal has wrongly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and has erroneously directed the authorities to mutate the name of the respondent in the revenue record in respect of Survey No. 136. By order dated 13-1-2020, the petitioner was granted time to address this Court with regard to the effect of the judgment passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 200-A/1985 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court by order dated 26-7-2016 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6994/2016. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that his suit for delivery of possession was dismissed on the principle of res judicata and not on the ground that the respondent has perfected his title by way of adverse possession or the suit for recovery of possession filed by the petitioner is barred by limitation, therefore, the petitioner still has a remedy of filing the suit. It is further submitted that unless and until it is declared by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction that the respondent has perfected his title by way of adverse possession, his name cannot be mutated in the revenue record in the capacity of Bhumi Swami. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The undisputed facts are that earlier the petitioner had filed a suit for declaration that although he has purchased Survey No. 136 but by mistake Survey No. 137 has been mentioned in the sale deed. The said suit was dismissed with a declaration that there is no mistake in the sale deed. Thus it is submitted that it was declared that in fact the petitioner had purchased Survey No. 136. However, as the petitioner was dispossessed by the respondent, therefore, a second suit was filed by the petitioner seeking delivery of possession, but the said suit was dismissed on the principle of res judicata. Thus it is submitted that it was declared that in fact the petitioner had purchased Survey No. 136. However, as the petitioner was dispossessed by the respondent, therefore, a second suit was filed by the petitioner seeking delivery of possession, but the said suit was dismissed on the principle of res judicata. Although the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was set aside by the Appellate Court which was affirmed by the High Court but the judgment passed in second appeal was reversed by the Supreme Court and the judgment passed by the Civil Court was affirmed and thus it was held that the suit filed by the petitioner for recovery of possession is barred by the principle of res judicata. Accordingly, it is clear that now the petitioner has been denied the relief of filing a suit for delivery of possession. 7. Undisputedly, it is the case of the petitioner himself that the respondent is in possession of the property in dispute. After the dismissal of his suit for delivery of possession, now the petitioner has no other legal remedy to recover the possession from the respondent. 8. It is well established principle of law that except in accordance with the procedure laid down in law the petitioner cannot use his muscle power for recovery of possession of the land in dispute from the respondent. It is true that even after the dismissal of the suit for recovery of possession the ownership of the petitioner will remain intact, but in view of the judgment passed by Supreme Court, he would be debarred from filing a suit for recovery of possession. Therefore, once a legal remedy has been denied to the petitioner for recovery of possession, then now even after getting his name mutated in the revenue record, he cannot be permitted to alienate the property or to deal with the property in any manner because the possession is a recognized concept of our country and when the possession of the respondent cannot be disturbed by following any legal remedy available to a litigant, then nobody can be permitted to dispossess the respondent by use of muscle power. Therefore, in order to avoid any multiple litigation in future, it would not be in the interest of justice that the name of the petitioner be allowed to remain in the revenue record. 9. Therefore, in order to avoid any multiple litigation in future, it would not be in the interest of justice that the name of the petitioner be allowed to remain in the revenue record. 9. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal did not commit any mistake by allowing the appeal filed by the respondent by order dated 4-11-2019 passed in Case No. 1011/Appeal/2017-18. 10. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.