ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 21-3-2016 passed by Tahsildar, Tahsil Hatta, District Damoh in Revenue Case No. 5-A/2015-16, order dated 30-1-2017 passed by the S.D.O. (R) Hatta, District Damoh in Appeal No. 40-A/70/2015-16, order dated 19-7-2018 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Sagar in Appeal No. 745/A-70/2016-17 and order dated 5-10-2021 passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior in case No. Revision/5561/2018/MPLRC by which the application filed by the petitioner under section 250 of the M.P.L.R. Code has been rejected. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of Khasra No. 15/3 ad measuring 0.047 hectares, Khasra No. 17/3 ad measuring 1.216 hectares, Khasra No. 19/3 ad measuring 0.287 hectares and Khasra No. 20/1 ad measuring 0.032 hectares as he has purchased the same by registered sale-deed dated 9-1-2013. Since the aforesaid land was illegally encroached upon by respondents No. 4 to 6, therefore, he filed an application under section 250 of the Code before the Tahsildar, Hatta, District Damoh. Respondents No. 4 to 6 filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC seeking dismissal of the aforesaid application on the ground that the land in dispute is an abadi land and the application under section 250 of the Code is not maintainable. 3. The Tahsildar, Tahsil Hatta, District Damoh held that house is also constructed over the land in dispute and, therefore, for restoration of possession of the house, an application under section 250 of the Code is not maintainable. Accordingly, the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code was allowed and the application filed by the petitioner under section 250 of the M.P.L.R. Code was dismissed. Ultimately, the petitioner lost his case even upto the Board of Revenue. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code was allowed and the application filed by the petitioner under section 250 of the M.P.L.R. Code was dismissed. Ultimately, the petitioner lost his case even upto the Board of Revenue. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has filed a copy of the application filed under section 250 of the Code as annexure P/6 which reads as under: vkosnu i= varxZr /kkjk 250 eŒÁŒ Hkw&jkŒ la[;k 1959 ds rgrA vkosnd dh vksj ls fuEu fuosnu ÁLrqr gS %& 1- ;g fd ekStk cwढ+k gVk] iŒgŒuaŒ 60] rglhy gVk] ftyk neksg esa Hkwfe [kŒuaŒ 15@3] 17@3] 19@3] 20@1 jdok Øe’k% 0-047] 1-216] 0-287] 0-032 dqy jdok 1-582 gsŒ jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa ';keeqjkjh firk euhjke vxzoky ds uke ls ntZ gSA vkosnd vt; ctkt] ';keeqjkjh dk eq[r;kj [kkl gksdj mDr Hkwfe ij ekfyd dkfct gSA 2- ;g fd vkosnd }kjk çLrqr vkosnu i= ij ekuuh; U;k;ky; us çØŒ 353 c@121] o"kZ 2014&15 esa ikfjr esa vkns’k fnukad 30-12-2014 ds rgr mDr Hkwfe dk lhekadu fd, tkus dk vkns’k ikfjr fd;k Fkk] mDr vkns’k ds ikyu esa nks jktLo fujh{kd ok gYdk iVokfj;ksa dh xfBr Vhe us fnukad 24-1-2014 ok 25-1-2015 dks dafMdk 1 esa of.kZr Hkwfe dk fof/kor~ lhekadu fd;k Fkk] lhekadu ds nkSjku vkosnd dh Hkwfe [kŒuaŒ 17@3 ds va’kHkkx 5 xq.kk 19 ehVj ij vukosnd Øekad 1 equhj firk gYdkbZ [kka dk voS/k dCtk ok 5 xq.kk 3 ehVj ij vyh eqgEen firk gchc [kka dk edku ok ckm.Mªh cukdj voS/k dCtk gksuk jktLo fujh{kd us lhekadu Áfrosnu esa ys[k fd;k gS] vyh eqgEen] vukosnd Øekad 2 jlhn dk lxk ekek Fkk] tks lhekadu ds iwoZ QkSr gks pqdk FkkA okLro esa mä 5 xq.kk 3 ehVj Hkwfe ij vukosnd Øekad 2 jlhn [kka }kjk ckm.Mªh ,oa edku cukdj voS/k dCtk fd;k x;k gSA lhekadu esa vkosnd dh Hkwfe [kŒuaŒ 19@3 ds va'kHkkx 5 xq.kk 70 QqV ij vukosnd Øekad 3 jkepj.k vfgjokj dk voS/k dCtk ik;k x;k] mDr lhekadu ds i'pkr~ lhekadu Vhe }kjk lhekadu çfrosnu fnukad 20-3-2015 dks rS;kj dj ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k çLrqr fd;k FkkA vukosndx.k dk lhekadu ds i'pkr~ vkosnd dh Hkwfe ij dCtk vçkf/k—r gks x;k gS ok mUgsa vkosnd dh ekfydh dCts dh Hkwfe ij dCts esa cus jgus dk dksbZ oS/kkfud vf/kdkj ugha gSA 3- ;g fd vkosnu i= ds lkFk Hkwfe ds [kljk [kkrk ok lhekadu laca/kh nLrkostksa dh çfr;ka layXu gSaA 4- ;g fd mDr vkosnu i= le;kof/k esa gksdj ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks vkosnu i= ij lquokbZ djus dk {ks=kf/kdkj gSA vr% Jheku~ th ls çkFkZuk gS fd ekStk cwढ+k gVk] iŒgŒuaŒ 60 esa vkosnd dh ekfydh dCts dh Hkwfe [kŒuaŒ 17@3 ds va'kHkkx 5 xq.kk 19 ehVj ls vukosnd Øekad 1 equhj firk gYdkbZa [kka dk ok 5 xq.kk 3 ehVj ij vukosnd jlhn firk fNíu [kka dk ,oa vkosnd dh Hkw es [kŒuaŒ 19@3 ds va'kHkkx 5 xq.kk 70 QqV ij ls vukosnd Øekad 3 jkepj.k vfgjokj voS/k dCtk gVok, tkdj vkosnd dks iquLFkkZfir djus dh n;k dh tk,A LFkku% gVk] fnukad% 2-12-2015 gLrk{kj vkosnd 6. This application was filed on 2-12-2015. The unamended provision of section 250 of the Code, which was in existence prior to the year 2018, reads as under: “250. Reinstatement of Bhumiswami improperly dispossessed: (1) For the purpose of this section and section 250-A Bhoomiswami shall include occupancy tenant and Government lessee. (1-a) If a Bhumiswami is dispossessed of the land otherwise than in due course of law or if any person unauthorisedly continues in possession of any land of the Bhumiswami to the use of which such person has ceased to be entitled under any provision of this Code, the Bhumiswami or his successor in interest may apply to the Tahsildar for restoration of the possession: (a) in case of Bhumiswami belonging to a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub-section (6) of section 165: (i) before the 1st July, 1978 in cases of unauthorised dispossession prior to the 1st July, 1976. (ii) in any other cases within five years from the date of dispossession or from the date on which the possession of such person becomes unauthorised, as the case may be. (b) in case of a Bhumiswami not covered by clause (a), within two years from the date of dispossession or from the date on which possession of such person becomes unauthorised, as the case may be. (1-b) the Tahsildar may on coming to know that a Bhumiswami or an occupancy tenant or a Government lessee has been dispossessed of his land otherwise then in due course of law, suo moto start proceedings under this section. (2) The Tahsildar shall, after making an enquiry into the respective claims of the parties, decide the application and when he orders the restoration of the possession to the Bhumiswami, put him in possession of the land. (2-a) The proceedings started under this section shall, on receipt of reply from the other party, continue from day to day unless for reasons to be recorded in writing a longer adjournment is considered necessary and in that case a copy of the order sheet containing the reasons for such adjournment shall be sent to the Collector. (2-a) The proceedings started under this section shall, on receipt of reply from the other party, continue from day to day unless for reasons to be recorded in writing a longer adjournment is considered necessary and in that case a copy of the order sheet containing the reasons for such adjournment shall be sent to the Collector. (3) The Tahsildar may at any stage of the enquiry pass an interim order for handing over the possession of the land to the Bhumiswamy, occupancy tenant or Government lessee, as the case may be, if he finds that he was dispossessed by the opposite party within six months prior to the submission of the application under this section. In such a case the opposite party shall, if necessary, be ejected under orders of the Tahsildar. (4) When an interim order has been passed under sub-section (3) the opposite party may be required by the Tahsildar to execute a bond for such sum as the Tahsildar may deem fit for abstaining from taking possession of land until the final order is passed by the Tahsildar. (5) If the person executing a bond is found to have entered into or taken possession of the land in contravention of the bond, the Tahsildar may forfeit the bond in whole or in part and may recover such amount as an arrear of land revenue. (6) If the order passed under sub-section (2) is in favour of the applicant the Tahsildar shall also award compensation to be paid to the applicant by the opposite party which shall be at the prorata rate of two hundred and fifty rupees per hectare per year. (7) The compensation awarded under this section shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. (8) When an order has been passed under sub-section (2) for the restoration of the possession to the Bhumiswami the Tahsildar may require the opposite party to execute a bond for such sum as the Tahsildar may deem fit for abstaining from taking possession of the land in contravention of the order. (9) Where an order has, been passed under sub-section (2) for the restoration of the possession of the Bhumiswami, the opposite party shall also be liable to fine which may extend to twenty per centum of the market value of such land.” 7. (9) Where an order has, been passed under sub-section (2) for the restoration of the possession of the Bhumiswami, the opposite party shall also be liable to fine which may extend to twenty per centum of the market value of such land.” 7. Thus, it is clear that in order to maintain an application under section 250 of the Code, the petitioner was under obligation to plead and prove that he was illegally dispossessed within a period of two years from the date of making of such application. However, it appears that the petitioner after purchasing the property got the land demarcated and when it was found that some part of the land purchased by him is under encroachment by private respondents, an application under section 250 of the Code was filed. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner was not dispossessed within a period of two years from the date of making of application but in fact vendors of the petitioner was already dispossessed. Without considering the correctness of the orders passed by the authorities below, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application which was filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in the light of unamended provision of 250 of the M.P.L.R. Code. 8. Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to file a suit for recovery of possession and in case if such a suit is filed then the trial Court shall decide the suit strictly in accordance with evidence which would come on record without getting influenced or prejudiced by any of the findings recorded by any of the revenue Tribunal. 9. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.