Jamnalal vs State of M.P.

Rohit Arya, J.—This appeal by plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11/5/2006 in Civil Appeal No. 6-A/2006 confirming the judgment and decree dated 22/12/2005 in Civil Suit No. 109-A/2004. Plaintiff''s suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

The suit land is an agricultural land admeasuring 1.045 hectare falling in survey No. 84/5/3, Patwari Halka No. 39, village Samarsinga, Post Jhagar, Tahsil and District Guna. Plaintiff claimed to have been given Patta of the aforesaid suit land vide order dated 11/1/1997 and since then he is in possession thereof doing cultivation. Defendant No. 2 in order to grab the suit land moved an application before the SDM on the premise that the suit land is of Bhudaan Board and earlier Patta thereof was given to his father-in-law and after his death, he has succeeded the same and continued to be in possession thereof. On such application, SDM has prepared a report without affording opportunity to the plaintiff. Based on the aforesaid report, Collector, Guna had invoked suo motu revisional jurisdiction and registered case No. 27/03-04 and issued notice to plaintiff. As plaintiff was approached by the local Patwari alongwith defendant no. 2 over the suit land on 30/10/2004 and threatened for forcible dispossession in the event he did not deliver possession of the suit land to the defendants, plaintiff filed the instant suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

Defendant/State filed written statement and denied plaint allegations inter alia contending that Batankan in favour of plaintiff was illegal for the reasons that plaintiff was illegally shown to be a landless person, which led to issuance of Patta in his favour. In fact, plaintiff has various parcels of agricultural land of his title and possession viz. survey no. 84/17/17 admeasuring 3.083 hectare, survey no. 20/3 admeasuring 0.421 hectare, survey no. 241/2 Ga admeasuring 0.975 hectare, survey no. 250/3 admeasuring 0.975 hectare, survey no. 250/3 admeasuring 0.050 hectare, survey no. 404/2 admeasuring 0.097 hectare, survey no. 517/3 admeasuring 0.026 hectare, survey no. 531/1 Ga admeasuring 0.028 hectare and in the joint name of his brother survey no. 415/43. Hence, plaintiff could not have been treated as a landless person for the purpose of grant of Patta and, therefore, exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction by the Collector was proper and legal and does not warrant any interference. It is further submitted that the aforesaid facts were also stated in the notice issued while suo motu proceedings were initiated by the Collector, Guna u/s 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. As such, the order passed by the Collector cancelling the Patta dated 11/1/1997 was absolutely justified. With the aforesaid pleadings, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

On aforesaid pleadings, trial court framed issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. Upon critical evaluation of entire evidence on record with due advertence to the pleadings of the parties, trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, first appellate court has again threadbare discussed the evidence brought on record and found that vide Khasra Panchshala, Ex. D/1, the suit land is reserved in the pool of government Bhudaan Board and plaintiff not being a landless person, could not have been awarded Patta of the suit land as a landless person and, therefore, the proceedings before the Collector by exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction were found to be legal and proper. As plaintiff has lost his status on account of cancelling of Patta, he has no right to seek declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. With the aforesaid findings, first appellate court dismissed the suit and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

Having perused the judgments impugned, this Court is of the view that plaintiff could not have been granted Patta as plaintiff is not a landless person and, therefore, on the materials placed before the Collector notice was issued with the description of the land held by the plaintiff to show-cause as to why the Patta granted on 11/1/1997 be not cancelled, as plaintiff under such circumstances could not have been treated as a landless person. The Collector after affording due opportunity to the parties passed the order cancelling the Patta granted on 11/1/1997 to the plaintiff. Under such circumstances, no fault can be found with the Courts below having upheld the order passed by the Collector in the facts and circumstances of the case. Under such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the entire matter has been dealt with in accordance with the statutory provisions of law. Findings so recorded, in the opinion of this Court, are impregnable in nature. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal warranting interference u/s 100 of CPC. The Second Appeal sans merits is hereby dismissed.