STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR THAPADIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 31/3/2005 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Appeal No.33-A/2004 whereby learned ADJ affirmed the judgment and decree dated 16/4/2004 passed by IInd Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal, in Civil Suit No.98-A/2002 whereby learned Civil Judge declared void the proceedings by which 56,572.24 square meters of plaintiff's land situated at village Bhanpur, Tahsil Huzur, Distt. Bhopal was declared surplus land and held that the respondent was entitled to get his name entered in the revenue records on that land and also to restrain the appellants/defendants from interfering in the possession of the respondent in that land.

(2.) Brief facts of the case which are relevant to the disposal of this case are that on 21/12/2000 the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit before Civil Judge Class-I Bhopal averring that he owned land bearing revenue survey nos.91/2, 92, 93/2 situated at village Bhanpur, Tahsil Huzur, Distt. Bhopal. Out of that land 56572.24 square metres of land was declared surplus land, under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Against that order, the plaintiff/respondent filed an appeal before Commissioner, Bhopal Division under Section 33 of the Act. During pendency of the appeal, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "Repeal Act") came into effect in the State of Madhya Pradesh. After enforcement of the Repeal Act, the appellants/defendants have no right to take possession of the land and the right vested in the appellants/defendants seized in such case since neither the possession of surplus land was taken prior to repealing the earlier Act nor compensation was given to the respondent. Though on 04/12/2000, the officers of the appellants/defendants made efforts to take possession, the appellants/defendants have no right, title and interest in the aforesaid land therefore, title and possession of the plaintiff on the aforesaid disputed land be declared and the appellants/defendants be restrained from interfering in the possession of the respondent/plaintiff on that land. On behalf of the appellants/defendants written statement was filed stating that the order to declare the aforesaid land as surplus land under the Act was passed in accordance with the law complying with all mandatory formalities and that was final and the possession of the land was taken over on 25-04-1984/17- 01-1991 after giving notice to the respondent/plaintiff and in this regard, entry has been made in the revenue record, and compensation has already been given to the respondent therefore, the respondent/plaintiff has no right, title and interest in the disputed land. Respondent/plaintiff cannot get any benefit of the Repeal Act, therefore, this suit be dismissed.

(3.) The learned trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties arrived at the conclusion that possession of the surplus land was not taken by the defendant/appellants on 25-04-1984 or on 17-09-1991, therefore, as per the provision of the Repeal Act, the order declaring the land surplus becomes void. So the respondent/plaintiff, who is in possession on the land as the owner is entitled to declare him the owner of that land and decreed the plaintiff's suit.