Panta Buildcom Private Limited vs Shailendra Kumar Upadhyay and Others

Rohit Arya, J.

This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 17/10/2014 in civil suit No. 472A/2014 dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by defendant no.3.

Facts necessary for disposal of this revision petition in nutshell are to the effect that non-applicant no.1/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property; a piece of land admeasuring 52 ft. X 151 ft., total 785 sq. ft., falling in survey no.519 in village Kota, Lashkar, Gwalior, MarghatKhana Road, Laxmiganj inter alia contending that the suit land was transferred in favour of plaintiff by execution of sale deed by defendant no.3-Mathurabai through her power of attorney vide sale deed dated 28/2/2000 on payment of consideration of amount of Rs.2,05,000/-. Plaintiff''s name was accordingly mutated in the revenue records by the orders of the Tahsildar dated 6/4/2000. His name was accordingly substituted in the revenue records as well as in the municipal record and he is paying tax. On being threatened for forcible dispossession on 19th and 20th November, 2006 by defendant no.1-Mahesh Kumar and his associates, the suit was filed.

Defendant no.1-Mahesh filed written statement and denied the plaint allegations inter alia contending that the suit land is of his ownership and possession. His name is recorded in the revenue records. The plaintiff in collusion with defendant no.3 and the revenue authorities has manipulated revenue records. The alleged sale deed by defendant no.3 through defendant no.4 in favour of plaintiff was denied, as defendant no.3 has no right, title and interest over the suit land. Suit land continues to be of the ownership of defendant no.1.

Defendant no.2 has also filed written statement and denied that defendant no.3 had any right, title and interest over the suit land.

As such, in that suit the question was ''as to whether Mathurabai-defendant no.3 through whom the plaintiff claimed to have acquired title of the suit land had any title to transfer the suit land in favour of plaintiff''.

The trial court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Thereafter, reached the conclusion that defendant no.3 had no right, title and interest over the suit land through the sale deed in favour of plaintiff.

The plaintiff''s claim as regards perfection of title by adverse possession; mutually destructive and inconsistent plea, has also been rejected. However, the trial court has protected possession of the plaintiff with direction that he may be dispossessed only by due process of law. Thereafter, with the strength of the order passed by the trial court, proceedings were initiated for evicting non-applicant/plaintiff from the suit premises under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. To stall the proceedings under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, the nonapplicant/ plaintiff cannot file a suit of the same nature i.e. declaration and permanent injunction that defendant no.2 has no right to institute proceedings under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code at the instance of defendant no.1 for delivery of possession of the suit land with further relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant no.3 not to interfere in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land.

In the subsequent suit plaintiff had asserted his right to the suit property by virtue of sale deed dated 28/2/2000 allegedly executed by Mathurabai through her power of attorney holder Girish Kalra, as contained in para 2 of the plaint. The earlier suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction was also on the strength of the alleged sale deed dated 28/2/2000 claimed to have been executed by Mathurabai through her power of attorney holder. Earlier suit has been dismissed as Mathurabai was found to have no title of the suit land by the alleged sale deed.

In the aforesaid background of facts, defendant no.3 has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 257 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code inter alia contending that the suit (civil suit No. 38-A/2009) for title and permanent injunction filed by non-applicant/plaintiff has already been dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 29/9/2011. The only relief granted by the trial court was to the effect that plaintiff may not be dispossessed except by due process of law. Proceedings under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code for reinstatement of Bhoomiswami is a procedure established by the law. Plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit property. His claim based on title as well as adverse possession has already been negated by the trial court. That apart, it is further submitted that under Section 257 (x) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code the suit is also barred by law. With the aforesaid objections, the suit was prayed to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC.

At this stage, it is apposite to quote relevant part of Section 257 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, which reads as under:-

"257. Exclusive jurisdiction of revenue authorities.- Except as otherwise provided in this Code, or in any other enactment for the time being in force, no Civil Court shall entertain any suit instituted or application made to obtain a decision or order on any matter which the State Government, the Board, or any Revenue Officer is by this Code, empowered to determine, decide or dispose of, and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of this provision, no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters :-

(a) to (w) XXXXXX

(x) any decision regarding reinstatement of a bhumiswami improperly dispossessed under Section 250;"

The trial court by the impugned order has rejected the application.

Having perused the order passed by the trial court, this Court is of the view that the trial court has proceeded on misconceived notion and fallacious reasonings that even if the plaintiff was held to have no title to the suit land, still he can seek protection against proceedings initiated under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code though in the judgment and decree passed by the trial court there was no restriction for dispossession of plaintiff by due process of law. Moreover, in absence of any challenge to the title of defendant no.1, the trial court has misdirected itself holding that the plaintiff had a better title than defendant no.1. That apart, any objection to Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code proceedings could only be taken before the authority in view of the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue authorities referred above. The trial court, in the opinion of this Court, has acted illegally and in excess of his jurisdiction while dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. As a matter of fact, once plaintiff lost his suit for title and right to be in possession of the suit property in the civil suit vide judgment and decree dated 29/9/2011 with the direction that the plaintiff may be dispossessed only by due process of law, the proceedings under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code initiated by defendant no.2 by virtue of his title over the suit land transferred vide sale deed dated 23/2/2011 could not have been found fault with and the trial court had no jurisdiction to intercept the said proceedings. The suit appears to be the manipulated proceedings to scuttle the legal proceedings pending consideration under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. However, if plaintiff has any grievance as regards maintainability of the proceedings or otherwise, he ought to have approached the revenue authorities. That has not been done. The judgments cited by learned counsel for non-applicant/plaintiff viz. Ramgopal v. Chetu, 1976 RN 146 and State of M.P. v. Balveer Singh, 2001 RN 343 have no bearing to the factual matrix of the case in hand and are of no assistance to the non-applicant/plaintiff. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The order is set aside. The civil suit stands dismissed.