ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs:- "(1) That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue the writ, quashing the Order dated 24.3.2022 passed in Case No.0056/2021-22/Appeal by Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain. (2) That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue the writ, quashing the Order dated 28.2.2020 passed by Additional Collector & 30.06.2020 passed by the Nazul Officer (respondent No.5). (3) The Hon’ble Court be further pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to grant NOC to the petitioner on an application filed by the petitioner for grant of NOC i.e. Annexure P/14. (4) The Hon’ble Court be further pleased to issue a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner. (5) Costs of this petition be awarded to the petitioner. (6) Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, be granted to the petitioner." 2. As per the petitioner, Ratlam was a Princely State and Raja Lokendra Singh was His Highness of Ratlam State. He married Maharani Prabha Rajya Laxmi. Upon independence of India, Rulers of Gwalior, Indore and certain other States known as Central India entered into a covenant for formation of United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa (also known as Madhya-Bharat) and on 31.10.1948 a Government Gazette notification was published. As per Article XII of the Covenant, each Ruler of Covenating State was entitled to full ownership, use and enjoyment of the private properties belonging to him and for that purpose he had to furnish details to the Raj Pramukh. In pursuance of the covenant, the Maharaja of Ratlam also furnished his list of properties in which at item No.2 “Shri Lokendra Bhawan with Compound and adjacent open area including road lying between Lokendra Bhawan and Polo Ground” was mentioned. Part of the aforesaid property measuring 91,296 sq. feet is the property in dispute. 3. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the disputed property is recorded in the name of Maharaja as his personal property in the record of rights maintained by the Superintendent, Land Records. Part of the aforesaid property measuring 91,296 sq. feet is the property in dispute. 3. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the disputed property is recorded in the name of Maharaja as his personal property in the record of rights maintained by the Superintendent, Land Records. He and his wife died issueless and all his personal properties were succeeded by his brother Ranveer Rathore and a succession certificate was issued in his favour by order dated 20.1.1999 by the Civil Court in Succession Case No.16/1997. The State of M.P. was also a party objector in the proceedings. The Registrar of properties was not registering the sale deed in respect of part of the disputed property hence W.P. No.3775/2006 was preferred before this Court which was allowed by order dated 31.7.2007 and the respondents were directed to register the sale deed. This order was affirmed in Writ Appeal No.556/2007. The petitioner has purchased the disputed property by three different sale deeds. Two parcels were purchased from Shri Ranveer Singh on 30.3.2007 and 16.4.2010. The Maharani had sold 9,363 sq. ft. in favour of one Kishore Mehta from whom the petitioner purchased the same by registered sale deed dated 22.4.2010. The petitioner has also been mutated in the municipal records of the respondents and is paying the property tax. 4. The petitioner has further submitted that it was interested in developing the land hence applied for grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) before respondent No.5 on 28.5.2020. The application in the prescribed format was also submitted later on. Respondent No.4 called for a report from the Tehsildar (Nazul), Ratlam and thereafter from the Revenue Inspector (Nazul). The Revenue Inspector (Nazul) on 23.6.2020 prepared a Panchnama along with map and submitted his report to the Tehsildar (Nazul). Therein it was stated that the disputed land is recorded as Aabadi in the records and is therefore part of Government land. The Tehsildar submitted his report dated 29.6.2020 to respondent No.5 who by order dated 30.6.2020 rejected the application for the petitioner. The said order has been affirmed by the Additional Collector, Ratlam by order dated 27.8.2020 in appeal. The second appeal preferred before the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain has also been dismissed by order dated 24.3.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the authorities below are illegal and contrary to law. The said order has been affirmed by the Additional Collector, Ratlam by order dated 27.8.2020 in appeal. The second appeal preferred before the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain has also been dismissed by order dated 24.3.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the authorities below are illegal and contrary to law. The authorities have erred in holding that the disputed property, which is a part of Survey No.157, is recorded in the name of Government in revenue records of 1956-57 without there being any evidence to that effect. The disputed land in the year 1956-57 was recorded as Aabadi land and of municipality. In 2001 the Nazul Officer had issued a clarification that 70% of personally owned properties in Ratlam city are recorded as Nazul Aabadi which does not mean that all those personal properties became Nazul or Government property. Recording of the disputed land as Aabadi will not take away the rights of the lawful owner. One Sheda Hussain had also purchased part of Lokendra Bhawan Compound from Maharaja Lokendra Singh on 23.7.1988 and is recorded over the same in the municipal records. He had also applied for grant of NOC from the Nazul Department for development which was granted on 26.11.1997. Granting NOC to one and denying the other is hostile discrimination. The State Government had itself admitted title of Maharaja Lokendra Singh since on 13.2.2001, communication was sent by the Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue to the Collector, Ratlam for acquiring the property. If the property was Government property, there was no question of sending any proposal for its acquisition. On application of Maharaja Lokendra Singh, the Town and Country Planning Department had itself granted approval to him for making construction in respect of remaining part of Lokendra Bhawan Compound. The disputed property falls within municipal limits of Ratlam Municipal Corporation and is recorded in the name of petitioner, who is paying the property tax for the same. Nazul land is one which is defined as an occupied land under section 2 (Z-3) of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and land not provided by the State Government on patta for non-agricultural purposes hence in view of admitted facts, the disputed property cannot be termed as Nazul. Nazul land is one which is defined as an occupied land under section 2 (Z-3) of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and land not provided by the State Government on patta for non-agricultural purposes hence in view of admitted facts, the disputed property cannot be termed as Nazul. Even if property is recorded as Aabadi land, then also it cannot be termed as Nazul land since Aabadi land does not fall within the defination of Nazul land. The disputed property was personal property of Maharaja Lokendra Singh which has been legally purchased by the petitioner who is the lawful owner of the same and is entitled for grant of NOC to him. 6. Reply has been filed by the respondents and the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the authorities below have not committed any error in holding that the property in question being a part of Survey No.157 is recorded in the name of State Government in the revenue record of 1956-57. The disputed land is Government land as is evident by the Trace Map and Google Map. The same being recorded in the name of Nazul Government land, NOC for construction cannot be given in favour of the petitioner. It is hence submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 8. The disputed property which is a part of Lokendra Bhawan with Compound was erstwhile held by Raja Lokendra Singh who was His Highness of Ratlam State. Upon independence, a covenant was entered into by the Rulers of Gwalior, Indore and certain other States in Central India which included Ratlam for the formation of United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa. As per Article XII(1) of the same, the Ruler of each covenanting State was entitled to full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties belonging to him on the date of his making over the administration of the State to the Raj Pramukh. The same is as under:- "(1) The Ruler of each Covenanting State shall be entitled to the full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties (as distinct from State properties) belonging to him on the date of his making over the administration of that State to the Raj Pramukh." 9. The same is as under:- "(1) The Ruler of each Covenanting State shall be entitled to the full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties (as distinct from State properties) belonging to him on the date of his making over the administration of that State to the Raj Pramukh." 9. The properties of the Ruler of Ratlam included Shri Lokendra Bhawan with Compound and adjacent open area including road between Lokendra Bhawan and Polo Ground. This thus became the private property of the Ruler and was owned by him in full ownership rights. Upon death of the Ruler and his wife, succession certificate with respect to the property was granted in favour of Raja Sajjan Singh from whom the petitioner purchased two parcels of disputed property and one parcel from Kishore Mehta, purchaser from wife of the Ruler, and became the owner thereof and was recorded over the same in the municipal records and is paying the property tax for the same to Municipal Corporation, Ratlam as is evident from various documents which have been filed along with this petition including Annexure P/12 and Annexure P/13. 10. Rejection of application of the petitioner for grant of NOC is primarily for the reason that in the revenue records of the year 1956-57, the disputed land is recorded in the name of Government as Nazul land. No other explanation has been offered. The only submission which has been made in the entire return in this regard is in paragraph No.V (27) which is as under:- "V(27) Contents of para V (27) to V(37) are denied. It is denied that the authority below have committed a grave error of law and fact both in holding that the property in question being a part of the survey No. 157 is recorded in the name of the Government in Revenue Record of 1956-57. It is most humbly submitted that the land in question is a government land. Copy of Khasra entry showing this fact is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R/1 as well as trace map and the Google maps are also annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R/2." 11. The disputed property was the private property of the Ruler of Ratlam from whom the same has eventually been purchased by the petitioner. It makes no difference that in the revenue record of the year 1956-57, the same was recorded as Government land. The disputed property was the private property of the Ruler of Ratlam from whom the same has eventually been purchased by the petitioner. It makes no difference that in the revenue record of the year 1956-57, the same was recorded as Government land. Such a record is not proof of ownership and cannot be given precedence to a conclusive document of title which in the present case is the covenant (Annexure P/3). It is not the contention of the respondents that such a covenant was not executed with the Ruler or Ratlam or that the disputed property was not declared to be the personal property of the Ruler of Ratlam therein. Their only defence is of the property being recorded in the revenue records of 1956-57 as Government land. Revenue records are not documents of title and on the other hand, have to confer to the documents of title as has been held by the apex Court in the case of P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar, 2023 SCC Online SC 1483 and Jitendra Singh v. State of M. P. and others 2021 SCC Online 802. 12. Though at some places, it has been recorded that the disputed land is Aabadi land but the said recording by itself would not dent the title of the Ruler of Ratlam and consequently of the petitioner. If the records do not conform to the document of title, it cannot be said that title would be lost or not accepted on that basis. In any case, the recording is only of the property as Aabadi and not as Nazul land. Nazul land is defined as "Unoccupied land" under section 2 (Z-3) of the Code and land provided by the State Government on patta for non-agricultural purposes. The same is not the case in the present matter. The disputed land is certainly not Aabadi land or land granted on patta. Thus, merely for recording at one or two places of the land being Aabadi would not make it Government land. It is pertinent to mention here that the State Government is itself not claiming any title to the disputed land specifically and is only disputing petitioner's entitlement for NOC on the ground of one revenue record of the year 1956-57. 13. It is pertinent to mention here that the State Government is itself not claiming any title to the disputed land specifically and is only disputing petitioner's entitlement for NOC on the ground of one revenue record of the year 1956-57. 13. From various documents which have been filed by the petitioner along with the petition which have not been controverted by the respondents in the return filed by them and which are hence deemed to be admitted documents, it is seen that the disputed property was earlier recorded in the name of Ruler of Ratlam from whom the same has been purchased by the petitioner, who is recorded thereupon in the Municipal Corporation records and is paying the property tax. On the contrary, there is no document whatsoever filed by the respondents except the revenue record of 1956-57 to demonstrate that the disputed land is Government land. The same also cannot be contended in view of the fact that the disputed property was declared as personal property of the Ruler of Ratlam. 14. The authorities below have rejected the application preferred by the petitioner by merely adverting to the revenue record that too of one year i.e. 1956-57 without at all taking into consideration the other documents of title filed by the petitioner. The same is wholly illegal and contrary to law hence cannot be sustained. 15. Consequently, the petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders passed by the authorities below are hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to grant the NOC to the petitioner on application filed by him vide Annexure P/14 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 16. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.