SHOBHNATH SAHU Vs. SARPANCH GRAM PANCHAYAT SITULKHURD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2008 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 13-A/2008 by the Additional District Judge, Waidhan, district Sidhi arising out of judgment and decree dated 27.6.2008 passed in Civil Suit No. 49-A/2006 by the First Civil Judge Class II, Waidhan, district Sidhi. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction regarding the suit land of certain revenue survey situated in Village Naudhiya, Tehsil Singraul, district Sidhi against the respondents contending inter alia that the appellant being a landless person taken over the possession of certain baron land of the State Government and made it cultivable. The respondent/Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat was having no title over the said land, but stating that the land in suit was given to the Panchayat for the purposes of construction of a pond, tried to dispossess the appellant. Such an act of the respondents was bad in law and against the procedure of law, the appellant was not to be dispossessed.

(2.) The suit was contested by the respondents/defendants on the ground that appellant was not a landless person and in fact he was a resident of village Kulhai, Tehsil Singrauli, where he was having 15 to 20 acres of land. He never made the baron land of the State Government in the impugned survey numbers cultivable. He was not having possession over the said land. The land was never settled in the name of the appellant. Therefore, when the State Government made a scheme for providing employment in the rural area, a scheme to make a pond within the village was sanctioned and for the said purposes the government land was allocated. The action to construct pond was started and such a construction has been completed on 15th June, 2006. Since the appellant was not having any possession over the land in suit, the claim was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The trial court, after framing of the issues, recorded the evidence and decreed the suit of the appellant. The appeal was preferred by the respondent No. 1 before the lower appellate court and since the appeal has been allowed, this second appeal is required to be filed.