1 Second Appeal No.607/2009 7.12.2011 Shri Anil Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment & decree dated 22.6.2009, passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Shajapur in Civil Regular Appeal No.3-A/09, whereby the learned lower appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court by which the suit of the plaintiff for grant of permanent injunction was dismissed. The plaintiff-appellant has filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of Survey Nos.1086, 1334/1 and 1334/4 on the ground that this land was mutated in his name and he is cultivating the same and there is no way from the said land. It is also submitted that the defendants are unauthorizely using the land and they are going in between the aforesaid survey numbers and, as such, the land of the plaintiff was divided in two parts and, therefore, decree for permanent injunction be granted in his favour, restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering with their possession and using the land in question as their land. The respondents filed their written statements and stated that Survey Nos.106, 1334/1 & 1334/4 is a government grazing/pasture land and they are using it as their way for the last 50 years. It is also alleged that once the land was recorded as government pasture land then as per Section 237 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 until and unless the order has been passed by the Collector to set apart land for exercise of Nistar rights the plaintiff cannot use it as agricultural land and no decree for permanent injunction can be granted against the defendants. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence available on record and in view of the admission made 2 by the plaintiff Ramprasad (DW1) in paragraphs 12 & 12 of his cross examination came to the conclusion that the suit land is a government land and is recorded as grazing/pasture land. In respect of mutation in favour of the appellant-plaintiff the Courts below have held that no document has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff to prove that the land was mutated in favour of the appellant. With these findings the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the pleadings made in the plaint and submitted that both the Courts below have held that the land is a government land and is in possession of the plaintiff. In absence of any cogent evidence or record of revenue came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove that the land was ever mutated in favour of the appellant. On perusal of the statement of plaintiff it is clear that the plaintiff himself in his statement has admitted that the land in question is a government grazing land and he has not filed any document to prove that the land was ever mutated in his favour in the revenue record. The land is recorded as grazing / pasture land and no order has been passed by the Collector under the provisions of Section 237 of the M.P.L.R. Code, 1959. On perusal of the material available on record so also the paragraphs 11 to 15 of the impugned judgment this Court is of the view that the Courts below have not committed any legal error in dismissing the suit, No question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal filed by the appellant has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (P.K. Jaiswal, J.) rcs*