Ramkumar Mahete vs The State of M.P.

J.K. Maheshwari, J.—This appeal is by the plaintiff directed against the judgment and decree dated 29th March, 2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Lahar District Bhind in Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2006 confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.1.1996 passed by Civil Judge Class II Lahar in Civil Suit No. 13A of 2004 by which, the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession has been dismissed but the decree for permanent injunction has been granted directing the respondents not to dispossess the plaintiff/appellant without following due process of law.

The plaintiff''s case in brief was that Survey No. 5604 area 0.408 Hectares is in the possession of the plaintiff since long. It is said that the land in question was cultivated by father since Samvat 2007 and continued in his name and thereafter in the name of the plaintiff. In Samvat 2023, Patwari disturbed the possession without issuing any notice and tried to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly till then, the plaintiff continued in possession for more than 30 years within the knowledge of the State Government. However, he has acquired title on the basis of adverse possession. It is further said that on having long possession on the said land, it may be protected and it cannot be disturbed without following due procedure of law.

The defendants by filing written statement have denied the plaint averments inter alia contending that the land was vested in the State Government and father of the plaintiff has never cultivated the same. It is further said that the possession of the plaintiff is as a encroacher, however, he is not entitled to seek any relief in the suit.

Learned courts below after framing issues and taking the evidence on record found that the continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the plaintiff has not been proved for last 30 years. In absence of the same suit seeking declaration was dismissed while permanent injunction was granted directing the respondents not to disturb possession of the plaintiff without following due procedure of law and the said finding has been affirmed by the appellate Court. Being aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred.

Shri H.D. Gupta learned Senior Counsel submits that as per finding of trial court as well as the appellate court, the appellant was found in long possession. However, the courts below committed error to dismiss the suit refusing decree of adverse possession. As the appellant is having long possession over the suit land, however, the said possession cannot be disturbed without taking recourse in the court of law. Therefore, formulating substantial question of law, this appeal may be admitted for final hearing.

Shri R.P. Rathi learned Government Advocate submits that continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the plaintiff has not been proved as per finding recorded by two courts therefore, the suit for declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession was rightly dismissed. So far as permanent injunction is concerned, the plaintiff being in possession, appropriate direction has already been issued which do not warrant any interference in this case.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is undisputed that the name of the plaintiff was recorded in some years in the revenue records but he is unable to prove continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession for 30 years, thereby, decree of title on the basis of adverse possession may be granted. The revenue entries reflects that the possession of the appellant, it is not continuous. In such circumstances, the finding of fact concurrently recorded by two courts below do not warrant any interference. Therefore, the said finding is hereby confirmed. It is seen that on the point of permanent injunction, the courts below have observed that the appellant is having possession on the suit land on the date of filing of the suit, therefore, said possession ought to have been protected and plaintiff should not be dispossessed without following due procedure of law. The said finding of fact appears to be justifiable in the facts and circumstances of the case which also do not warrant any interference in this appeal.

With the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. This appeal stands dismissed accordingly.

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per provisions of M.P. Krishi Prayojan Ke Liye Upyog Ki Ja Rahi Dakhal Rahit Bhoomi Par Bhoomiswami Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana (Vishesh Upbandh) Adhniyam, 1984, the land which is possessed by the appellant may be settled in favour of the appellant. However, in this regard, it is suffice to observe that if any right accrues on the basis of possession of the plaintiff, the said accrual of right can be adjudicated by the authorities independently without being influenced by the dismissal of the appeal.