Mahendra Kumar Oudichay vs State of M.P.

Rohit Arya, J.—This appeal by plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30/6/2006 in Civil Appeal No. 32-A/2005 confirming the judgment and decree dated 1/10/2005 in Civil Suit No. 29-A/2001. Plaintiff''s suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

Plaintiff claims to be in peaceful, continuous, uninterrupted possession over the suit land admeasuring 1.672 hectare falling in survey no. 1056/1 and 0.261 hectare falling in survey no. 1056/2, total area 1.933 hectare in village Aron, District Guna for last 35-40 years belonging to his father and brother doing cultivation and harvesting crops thereon. Having apprehension of forcible dispossession through proceeding u/s 248 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, plaintiff filed instant suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

Defendants filed written statement and denied the plaint allegations. It is submitted that plaintiff in order to grab the government land has filed the instant suit. In fact the plaintiff has been dispossessed from the suit land and vacant possession is with the defendants/State.

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 re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. It has been found that though in Khasra Panchshala for certain years plaintiff is shown to be in possession, however, after Samvat 2056 (year 1999) plaintiff''s possession is not shown. In fact the entries shown in the name of plaintiff are for the reason of encroachment being done by the plaintiff for which he was fined by the Revenue Department. As per Article 112 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, as plaintiff claims adverse possession against the State, he is required to prove his peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted possession for more than 30 years hostile to the State. Evidence brought on record has not established the aforesaid requirement of Article 112 of the Act. Accordingly, the first appellate court confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

Having gone through the impugned judgments on record, this Court is of the view that the courts below have recorded impregnable findings of facts based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. The entire gamut of the matter is in the realm of facts. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal warranting interference u/s 100 of CPC. However, before parting with the appeal, it is considered proper to observe that in case plaintiff is found to be in possession of the suit land or part thereof, he shall not be dispossessed except by adhering to due procedure prescribed under the law. With the aforesaid observation, the Second Appeal sans merits is hereby dismissed.