BHAGWANDEEN DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on admission. Perused the records. Appeal at the instance of plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05-02-2008 in Civil Appeal No. 33- A/2007; whereby, the judgment and decree dated 05-12-2002 passed by II Civil Judge Class I, Satna, dismissing the suit has been affirmed.

(2.) CLAIMING to be the Bhumiswami in possession of 0.11 acre of Khasra No. 331 old, 331/1/Ka New, total area 9.13 acre situated at Ward No. 34 village and Mohalla Dhawari, tahsil Raghurajnagar, district Satna, on the basis of being allotted on 18-03-1950 by the then Pawaidar by "Paat" and as per the permission granted on 10-01-1960 by Nyay Panchayat, Diloura, having constructed a house thereon plaintiff No. 1 being aggrieved by the action of defendant of recording the said land as Nazul Land brought a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the plea that since 1950 the plaintiff No. 1 is in peaceful possession of the property for more than 30 years and that no notice ever was given before recording the subject land as Nazul Land. Defendant contested the claim inter-alia submitting that plaintiff No. 2 is an encroacher over the suit land since 1994 and has been proceeded against and that "Paat" dated 18-03-1950 is forged and fabricated and that after abolition of Pawaidar in 1950 the Pawaidar had no authority to allot the land. That allotment of suit land in favour of plaintiff No. 1 by the Nyay Panchayat, Diloura is forged and fabricated as it did not have any right to make such allotment. That the suit land being government land was allotted to Nazul Department in 1964.

(3.) FURTHERMORE , the trial Court in paragraph 13 of the judgment dated 05-12-2002 held that the plaintiffs also failed to prove the acquisition of ownership/title after abolition of Pawaidar. And that after coming into force of Code of 1959 the Nyay Panchayat had no authority to confer any right in suit land in favour of plaintiff No. 1. These findings of the trial Court have further been affirmed by the Appellate Court. The concurrent findings recorded by two courts below does not warrant an interference in absence of cogent evidence to prove the contrary. In the result, appeal fails and is dismissed at admission stage. Costs as incurred.