Ramesh vs State of M.P.

Rohit Arya, J.—Heard on the question of admission.

This appeal by plaintiffs/appellants u/s 100 of C.P.C. is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3/4/2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Sabalgarh, District Morena in Civil Appeal No. 11-A/2006 confirming the judgment and decree of trial Court dated 31/1/2006 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Sabalgarh in Civil Suit No. 90-A/1994. Plaintiffs suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

Suit land is a part of land survey No. 729 (After settlement New Survey Nos. 564, 567, 568 and 569) admeasuring 8 bigha 18 biswa in village Pipardhan, Pargana Sabalgarh, District Morena. Plaintiffs contended that the suit land since the time of Princely Gwalior State was given to Shri Radhakrishan Temple and the Temple was recorded as Bhumiswami. It is further submitted that in Samwat 1988 (year 1931), the then Pujari of the Temple Shri Balakdas had given on lease the suit land to plaintiffs'' ancestors namely Ramlal and Narayanlal and since then as Pattedar, the suit land is all along been in possession of the plaintiffs or their ancestors and therefore, by virtue of Section 158-B of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, the suit land is of the Bhumiswami rights of Temple Shri Radhakrishan. It is submitted that respondents/State without notice and knowledge of the plaintiffs, has recorded the suit land as Maufi Aukaf Land and the Collector has been recorded as Manager thereof in revenue records. It is submitted that plaintiffs continued to be in possession of the suit land as Shikmi Krishak by virtue of allotment of lease by the Pujari of the temple. The initiation of proceedings by the Nayab Tahsildar u/s 248 of M.P. Land Revenue Code by registering case No. 60/90-91 was illegal and the consequential order of dispossession dated 17/1/1994 is also illegal. Suit was filed for declaration that suit land is of the Bhumiswami rights of the temple and plaintiffs are Shikmi Krishak thereof and therefore are entitled for recording of the same in the revenue records, with the further declaration that the order of dispossession dated 17/1/1994 is illegal and unsustainable.

Defendants filed written statement denying the plaint allegations. It is inter alia contended that the suit land is a government land recorded as Aukaf land. It is denied that in Samwat 1993 (year 1936), the suit land was recorded as Bhumiswami rights of temple. In fact the name of temple is recorded as Kashtkar which has no relation with the plaintiff or his ancestors. It is further denied that the suit land was ever given on lease to ancestors of plaintiffs. In fact the suit land which was of Devsthan Maufi land was taken from the temple and surrendered to Aukaf Department. It is denied that plaintiffs were ever been in possession of the suit land as Shikmi Krishak. The State has all rights to change the nature of the land and accordingly, the same is changed. In fact, the plaintiffs were encroachers over the suit land and therefore, were rightly been ordered to be dispossessed by Nayab Tahsildar and therefore, also no right, title or interest is accrued in favour of the plaintiffs.

On aforesaid pleadings, trial court framed issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence and upon critical evaluation of the evidence on record, trial Court dismissed the suit by recording comprehensive findings of fact.

On appeal, the first appellate Court has again re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. The first appellate Court has held that there is no documentary evidence on record much less Patta in favour of the plaintiffs to establish the right of plaintiffs over the suit land either as Shikmi Krishak or otherwise. It is further held that Pujari of the

Temple was having no right to grant Patta to any person in respect to the land attached to the temple. That apart upon perusal of the documentary evidence, first appellate Court has further found that plaintiffs have always been found to be encroacher over the suit land and therefore, the proceedings u/s 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code were initiated. There is no evidence much less Khasra Panchshala entries on record to establish the status of plaintiffs or their ancestors as Shikmi Krishak since Samwat 1993 onwards as well discussed in para 11 and 13 of the judgment.

As such Courts below have concurrently recorded findings of fact that against the claim of plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. In the opinion of this Court, the findings of fact as recorded by both the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and in the realm of facts, which do not warrant any interference u/s 100 of CPC by this Court. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal sans merits, is hereby dismissed.