AMAR SINGH CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is at the instance of the plaintiff challenging the judgment of the first appellate Court dated 103.2010 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court by judgment dated 4.1.2010 had dismissed the suit for declaration and injunction being C.S. No.46A/2009 filed by the appellant.

(2.) THE appellant had filed the suit for declaration and injunction raising the plea that appellant and his family members were owner in possession of the land at Survey No. 663 adjoining to Mhow-Neemuch National Highway and on one corner of their land there was a shopping complex. For taking that land for the road widening purpose, it was proposed by the respondent to grant the land of Survey No.413 Area 136 hectare at village Bhuniakhedi in exchange and it was accepted by the Government vide Order dated 17.11.2010. Thereafter the land at Bhuniakhedi was given in exchange to the appellant and the mutation of the said land in the appellant's name was done and the appellant's land adjoining the National Highway was used for widening the road by demolishing the shopping compex. The exchange of land became final thereafter, vide order dated 4.4.2008, without any basis the earlier order of exchange dated 17.11,2000 was cancelled. Meanwhile a part of the land received in exchange was sold by the appellant to some other person. Therefore, a declaration was sought to the effect that the order dated 4.4.2008 was illegal and injunction was sought to restrain the respondent from interfering in the use of the land received by the appellant in exchange.

(3.) THE suit filed by the appellant was dismissed by the trial Court holding that the order dated 4.4.2008 is neither illegal nor ineffective. It was also found that the respondent is not illegally trying to interfere in possession of the appellant on the land received by him in exchange, The suit was found to be maintainable and the objection of the respondent relating to non-joinder of necessary parties was rejected.