HARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MATTER is heard and reserved for orders.

(2.) PLAINTIFF brought the suit in question on the factual matrix that the suit land as in SAMVAT 2007 belonged to Mansingh Dangi who was a Zamindar. On abolition of Zamindari, name of Mansingh Dangi was deleted from the Government record and the land was recorded as Government land, but the possession of said Mansingh Dangi who was the grand father of the plaintiff continued. Mansingh Dangi died, whereafter the father of appellant Bundel Singh continued in possession of the suit land. Name of the father of plaintiff was recorded in the revenue records. Since the death of father of the plaintiff, which took place about 12 years before filing of the suit, the plaintiff is in peaceful and uninterrupted possession, but his name has not been recorded in the revenue records. Proceedings u/S 57 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code were initiated by the plaintiff for recording his name as the title holder of the suit land, but to no avail. Thus, the plaintiff filed the suit in question seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction against the State.

(3.) THE Courts below found the stand of plaintiff to be contradictory. On the one hand, the plaintiff averred that the suit land devolved upon him from his ancestors, while on the other hand plaintiff tries to raised the plea of adverse possession. The Courts further found that the plaintiff in his cross -examination admitted paying fine for possessing the Government land which led the Courts below to conclude that possession of the appellant is not uninterrupted. The Courts below on scrutinizing the statement of the plaintiff's witness Rambabu and the other prosecution witness Rajesh found that notices for removal of encroachment were received by the plaintiff and that the notices categorized the plaintiff as encroacher over Government land. PW3 Rajesh has further expressed his ignorance, as to how the suit land came in possession of the plaintiff. Thus, the Courts below concluded that State has never treated the possession of the plaintiff to be peaceful and uninterrupted and therefore the ground of adverse possession for claiming title over the suit land was held to be not established. The Courts also found by perusing the revenue records from 1999 -2000 to 2001 -2002 that the suit land is recorded is Charnoi with the plaintiff's name recorded as encroacher.