Dwarika Prasad vs State of M.P. and Others

Rohit Arya, J.

This appeal by plaintiff under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree passed by first appellate Court dated 25.06.2005 in Civil Appeal No. 34/2003 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 29.08.2003 in Civil Suit No. 107-A/2000. Plaintiff''s suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

Plaintiff filed a suit inter alia contending that the suit land was given to the plaintiff''s ancestors by the then Jamidar of the area and thereafter, after abolition of Zamidari system, his ancestors and thereafter plaintiff has been in continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession over the suit land, doing cultivation and harvesting crops thereupon. It is submitted that by virtue of long possession, plaintiff has perfected title over the suit by adverse possession. Having apprehended forcible dispossession, plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

Defendants/State filed written statement and denied plaint allegations inter alia contending that suit land is Charnoi land and recorded in the name of State Government as Bhumi Swami. It is denied that the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land as alleged. It is further contended that plaintiff is an encroacher. With the aforesaid pleadings, defendants/State prayed for dismissal of the suit.

On the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Upon critical evaluation of the entire evidence on record, trial Court has dismissed the suit. It is found that plaintiff failed to establish his continuous, uninterrupted and peaceful possession over the suit land for period of 30 years as well as the alleged claim as regards the suit land on the basis of Patta Annexure P-5. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, first appellate Court has re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and confirmed the findings of facts recorded by the trial Court. However, the first appellate Court in paragraph 10 has found that in revenue records, appellant/plaintiff is found to be in possession but only as an encroacher and not as Bhumi Swami.

Having perused the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, findings of facts so recorded are found to be impregnable in nature. Entire gamut of matter is in the realm of facts. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises warranting interference under Section 100 CPC. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of substance.

At this stage, counsel for the appellant submits that even if the plaintiff/appellant is encroacher, he cannot be said to be in unauthorized possession over the suit. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff being landless person, his claim may be ordered to be considered in the light of provisions contained under Section 162 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 as amended vide Madhya Pradesh Bill No. 19 of 2013 as the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 2013, published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette dated 11.07.2013 which reads as under:-

"162. Disposal of certain land in unauthorized possession.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 248 and subject to rules made in this behalf, any land belonging to the State Government in such areas as notified in the official Gazette by the State Government, which is in unauthorized possession, shall be disposed of for agricultural and residential purposes, in government lessee rights by the Collector to such extent and on payment of such amount of premium and lease rent as may be prescribed.

(2) If any land is disposed of under Sub-section (1) all proceedings pending in any revenue court under Section 248 in respect of such land shall stand abated."

It is submitted that in the area where the suit land is situated, several persons have been extended the benefit of the aforesaid provision of the Code, 1959 by the respondents/State in the matter of grant of lease rights. Hence, it is prayed that same treatment may be extended to the plaintiff also.

The aforesaid submission is considered. The prayer appears to be reasonable and innocuous in nature. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that the plaintiff/appellant claim shall be considered in the light of the provisions as contained under Section 162 of the Code, 1959 as amended referred to above on its own merits, in accordance with law and decide the same with due notice to the plaintiff/appellant expeditiously by the competent authority of the respondent/State. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case or claim.

Appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation.