RAMLAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Court below has dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and issuance of permanent preventive injunction by holding that the plaintiff had utterly failed in proving any title to the suit land and he was a rank trespasser over the Govt land which was rightly allotted to other land less persons. In spite of his best efforts, the learned counsel for the appellant has failed in demonstrating how that finding can be termed erroneous.

(2.) PLACING reliance on Ramkishan v. Rampal [1992 (I) MPWN 164] and Amra v. Samalia (1991 -11 -MPWN 119), the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that inasmuch as the plaintiff was in possession of the land, at least an injunction protecting his possession against dispossession by extra -legal methods should have been issued leaving it open to the defendant/State to take recourse to law and then dispossess the plaintiff/appellant. On the principle propounded, that even a trespasser in settled possession is entitled to an injunction protecting his possession against wrongful acts of the owner, there can be no dispute. However, in the present case, the defendants are the State and its official, in its official capacity. There is no reason to assume that the respondents would resort to extra -legal methods for removing the encroachment, if any, of the appellant. Though the plaintiff averred in the plaint that he was being threatened with dispossession but that averment was denied in the written statement. The plaintiff has not stated a single word in his statement apprehending forcible dispossession. On the contrary, he has deposed that no one had prevented him from entering in the suit land. On behalf of the defendants, a Patwari was examined and to him also, it was not suggested by the plaintiff that the plaintiff was proposed to be dispossessed forcibly.