BANMALI KUMAR Vs. VASUDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant challenging judgment and decree dtd. 14/5/2014 passed by learned Second Additional District Judge, Mahasamund (CG) in Civil Appeal No. H-29/2014 whereby first appeal filed by respondents/plaintiff against judgment and decree dtd. 6/2/2008 passed in Civil Suit No.36-A/2006 has been allowed.

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondents/plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaring the order passed by Board of Revenue dtd. 31/10/1995 and its compliance order passed by Tahsildar vide order dtd. 10/4/2002 to be null and void. It was the case of plaintiff that according to the order passed on 31/08/1972, government patta was allotted to Chamra son of Sadhvo Saura, Dukalu son of Panka Gond and Sukhru son of Bisahu Gond of the land situated in village Savitripur P. H. No. 38 Tehsil and District Mahasamund, old Khasra No. 110/2, 110/3, 110/4 measuring 2.043 hectare, 3.033 hectare and 1.878 hectare respectively. After mutation, their names were recorded in revenue records. Thereafter, as per the order of the Revenue Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisgarh) and the order of the Collector Raipur under the Twenty Points Program, land of government patta was given in the bhoomiswami rights. Accordingly, their names were recorded in the revenue records as land owner/bhoomiswami. Chamra is dead, plaintiff No.1 Vasudev is his son. Similarly, Dukalu is dead and plaintiffs No. 2 to 7 are the legal heirs of Dukalu. Sukhru is also dead and plaintiffs No. 8 to 11 are the legal heirs of Sukhru. After getting patta, above lands have been made fertile and useful by the patta holders and his successors i.e. the plaintiffs by expending huge amount on it. They were peacefully occupying the land since the year 1972. No objection was raised by the defendants or any other person at the time of granting patta of the land or thereafter. The defendants were aware of the ownership of plaintiffs and allotment of the above lands. Despite that, defendant No.1 filed an application under Sec. 57(2) of the Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Land Revenue Code, 1959 in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahasamund in respect of the land situated at village Savitripur, old kh. No. 110, measuring 33.44 acres. That application came to be dismissed. After dismissal of application under Sec. 57(2) of the Land Revenue Code, defendant No.1 took recourse to remedy of filing first appeal before Additional Collector, Raipur and thereafter second appeal before Additional Commissioner, Raipur where plaintiffs or their father were not made parties. Upon dismissal of appeals filed by defendant No.1, subsequently, he filed a Revision Case No. 151-A/87 (Banmali Kumar vs. Government of Madhya Pradesh) before the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior, in which final order was passed on 31/10/1995. In the said revision case also, plaintiffs or their father were not made parties. In the order passed by Board of Revenue on 31/10/1995, Tehsildar, Mahasamund was directed to transfer the above land bearing Khasra No. 110 in the name of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 has obtained the said order in his favour by playing fraud and the order affecting the rights and privileges of the plaintiffs has been passed by the Revenue Board without any notice or knowledge of plaintiffs, and therefore it is against the principle of natural justice and is not binding on the plaintiffs. Patta granted to the plaintiffs' ancestors has not been declared ineffective by any Court or competent authority, hence all the rights and title under the said patta still exist.

(3.) Defendant No.1/appellant submitted a detailed counterclaim denying all material facts and further pleaded that Khasra Nos. 110, 111, 112, and 113 were purchased from the village maalgujar Vasudev in the year 1927. Except for Khasra No. 110, remaining land was registered in the landownership rights of defendant No. 1. Defendant No.1 and his ancestors were the owners and occupants of the old Khasra No. 110 since its inception. Therefore, government had no right to distribute patta of the said land to others. State government had lost the case before Board of Revenue and they have not filed any proceeding under Sec. 57(3) of the Land Revenue Code, therefore, defendant No. 1 has acquired ownership rights of khasra No. 110. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs' claim be dismissed with costs as it is barred under Sec. 257 (f) of the Land Revenue Code and the suit filed is beyond the period of limitation.