NANDU BAI Vs. CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF has come up in appeal questioning the legality and correctness of the impugned order dated 16.11.99 passed by District Judge Rajgarh in C.S. No. 11 A/96 whereby, the learned lower appellate Judge was pleased to allow the appeal filed by defendant against the judgment and decree rendered by C.J. Class II Zirapur in C.S.No. 68A/91 dt. 2.2.96. By impugned order, the learned District Judge has been pleased to set aside the decree which was under challenge before him in the appeal and has remanded the case to trial Judge by asking the plaintiff and the State to be the necessary party in the suit. In short, the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal need mention.

(2.) DISPUTE relates to a small piece of land and a hut constructed on it bearing survey No. 1342/2 measuring 30x20 in Tahsil Jirapur. Appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit being C.S. No. 68 A/91 for a declaration of her title over the land. According to plaintiff, she got the aforesaid piece of land from State treating her to be a land lady under the 'MP. Nagariya Chetron ke Bhoomiheen Vyakti Pattadharti Adhakaro Ka Pradan Kiya Jana Adhiniyam, 1984' for short Act. It was alleged that she is in possession of land for more than 12 years and hence also acquired the rights of ownerships. It was then alleged that on 25.7.91, the defendant Chief Nagar Palika Adhikari of Nagar Panchayat Zirapur served the plaintiff to vacate the said land and hence need arose to file suit to claim declaration and injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in her possession.

(3.) THE trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff and, therefore, defendant (respondent herein) filed first appeal to District Judge out of which this appeal arises. The learned District Judge by impugned judgment allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed by trial Judge. In his opinion, State was a necessary party to the suit, and hence no trial could take place muchless decree be passed without first joining the State as one of the defendant. In other words in the opinion of learned District Judge, State was necessary party to suit particularly in the context of the provisions of Act. It was essentially on this ground that the learned District Judge was persuaded to remand the case directing the plaintiff to make the state as one of the defendant. It was also observed that if any other person wished to join as party in the suit, he may do so. It is against this order the plaintiff has felt aggrieved and has filed this appeal.