Komal Singh vs State of M.P.

J.K. Maheshwari, J.—Heard on the question of admission.

This appeal, by the plaintiff, is directed against the judgment and decree 10.08.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) in Civil Appeal No. 20A/2004 confirming the findings recorded by the I Civil Judge Class II, Ganjbasoda, in Civil Suit No. 85A/2002, vide judgment and decree dated 06.01.2004 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs seeking declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession and permanent injunction.

Plaintiff''s case, in brief, was that he was in possession of the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 504 area 0.492 hectare, Survey No. 242 area 1.391 hectares and Survey No. 244 area 1.379 situated in village Nanukhedi, Tahsil Basoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) since more than 30 years continuously, peacefully in the knowledge of the defendant, however, he has perfected his title by virtue of adverse possession. The prayer has also been made to not to dispossess him from the suit land.

Defendant by filing written statement contested the case of the plaintiffs, inter alia, contending that the plaintiffs are encroachers, and in illegal possession, however, not acquired any title on the suit land. Being encroachers, their possession cannot be protected.

Courts below after framing issues and adducing evidence by the parties recorded a finding that plaintiffs having failed to prove their continuous possession of last 30 years peacefully, hostile to the real owner, however, suit seeking declaration was dismissed. The appellate court, in addition, has observed that at this stage dispossession of the plaintiffs without following the due process of law by the officers of the defendant is not accepted. Therefore, it was refused.

Shri D.D. Bansal, learned counsel representing appellant, has strenuously urged and submitted that in view of the findings recorded in para 22 of the judgment rendered by the lower appellate court, it is apparent that the appellant is in possession of the suit land. However, the finding recorded by the courts below refusing declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession and perpetual injunction is unsustainable in law. In the alternative, it is his contention that being a landless person, appellant is entitled to get benefit of the M.P. Krishi Prayojan Ke Liye Upyog Ki Ja Rahi Dakhal Rahit Bhoomi Par Bhoomiswami Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana (Vishesh Upabandh) Adhiniyam, 1984, however, the direction to decide the application of the plaintiff may be issued protecting his possession. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the matter of Prahlad Ahirwar Vs. State of M.P., .

Shri R.P. Rathi, learned counsel representing the State Government, contends that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his continuous possession on the suit land. However, two courts below have refused to grant decree of declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession holding that such plea is not available to the plaintiff. In such circumstances, findings of facts concurrently recorded by the two courts below do not warrant interference, however, this appeal may be dismissed at admission stage.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is apparent that the plaintiff has failed to prove his continuous possession hostile to the real owner. Observing the aforesaid, looking to the findings of the two courts below, in my considered opinion, dismissal of the suit seeking declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession by the impugned judgment does not warrant interference.

As regards injunction prayed in the suit to not to dispossess the plaintiff without adopting due process of law, the lower appellate court has observed that the officers of the State Government shall not take any step ignoring the provisions of law. However, elaborating the same it is directed that the possession of the appellants can be disturbed by following the due process of law while dispossessing.

In view of the foregoing discussion, no substantial question of law for determination arises in this appeal. Resultantly, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

At this stage, it is suffice to observe that the dismissal of this appeal would not bar the right, if any, accrues to the plaintiff under the provisions of the M.P. Krishi Prayojan Ke Liye Upayog Ki Ja Rahi Dakhal Rahit Bhoomi Par Bhoomiswami Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana (Vishesh Upabandh) Adhiniyam, 1984, however, no directions are necessary in this regard.