STATE OF M.P. Vs. PREMKUMAR WADHWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants 1-2/State Government challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 7/4/1997 passed by 1 st Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit no.10-A/1996, whereby suit filed by the respondents 1-4/plaintiffs has been decreed holding the notice dtd. 2/4/1996 to be illegal and that the defendants have no right to make any interference in the construction activities being carried out by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, permanent injunction has also been granted against the defendants.

(2.) In short the facts are that the plaintiffs claimed themselves to be owner and in possession of the disputed land total area 15700 sq.ft. bearing in khasra no.26, opposite Neelkanth Colony, ward no.9, Idgah Hills, Bhopal allegedly purchased by them from one Gulshan-E-Gandhi Housing Co-operative Society, Bhopal through four registered sale deeds. It is alleged in the plaint that Nazul Officer, Bhopal also granted no objection certificate in respect of the aforesaid land and before granting NOC, the Nazul Officer made all the legal enquiry as to whether the land belonged to the Government or not and ultimately the Nazul Officer, Bhopal issued NOC declaring that the land does not belong to the Government and it is a private property. It is also alleged that after purchase of the land, all the plaintiffs sought permission of raising construction from the defendant 3-Municipal Corporation, which was duly granted by it and after getting the permission, the plaintiffs raised construction of boundary wall around the plot. Thereafter, without any authority, a notice dtd. 2/4/1996 was issued and Nazul Inspector threatened the plaintiffs to stop the construction work, which constrained the plaintiffs to file the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

(3.) The defendants 1-2 appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint allegations. In para 1 of the written statement, ownership of the plaintiffs as well as of their predecessor-in-title, was specifically denied. It is contended that the permission of raising construction granted by the defendant 3, does not confer any title on the plaintiffs. It is also contended that the land in question was acquired on 12/11/1955 and it is Government land. On inter alia contentions the suit was prayed to be dismissed.