NAGRAJ SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiff, which was admitted by a Bench of this Court on following substantial questions of law:

(2.) The defendants filed the written statement, in which inter alia it was pleaded that the plaintiff came to Amarkantak sometime in the year 1961 and is not in possession of the suit land. It was further pleaded that no permission was obtained by the plaintiff from any of the Officer of the Rewa State. The plaintiff has fraudulently mutated his name in the revenue records of the year 1956-57 and 1967-68 in respect of suit land. It was denied that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land for past 35 years. It was pointed out that the plaintiff was in possession of the land admeasuring 11.055 hectares as an encroacher and in proceeding under section 248 of the Code 1959, the plaintiff was dispossessed from the land in his occupation. It was further pleaded that the reliefs claimed in the suit by the plaintiff have neither been properly valued nor proper Court fees has been affixed.

(3.) The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 22-7-1991 inter alia held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in possession of the suit land with consent of the Tahsildar as required under section 57(4) of the Code 1935, therefore, he is not a gairhaqdar tenant. On the basis of the entries made in original Khasra (Ex. P/3) it was held that the land bearing Khasra Nos. 296 to 299 and 357 are recorded as forest land in the revenue records and the Government has been shown to be the owner of the land in question. It was further held that in the year 1958-59, the plaintiff's name appears to have been interpolated by different ink in the revenue records. Since the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was gairhaqdar tenant in respect of the land in question therefore, in view of section 158 of the Code, 1959 he has not acquired the Bhumiswami rights in respect of suit land. It was further held that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land since 1960 and the suit has been filed in the year 1985 therefore, the plaintiff has not acquired title on the land in question. It was further held that the plaintiff has already been dispossessed on 9-1-1987 in the proceeding under section 248 of the Code 1959. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. The aforesaid decree was affirmed in appeal by the Lower Appellate Court.