JAMNALAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11/5/2006 in Civil Appeal No. 6 -A/2006 confirming the judgment and decree dated 22/12/2005 in Civil Suit No. 109 -A/2004. Plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) THE suit land is an agricultural land admeasuring 1.045 hectare falling in survey No. 84/5/3, Patwari Halka No. 39, village Samarsinga, Post Jhagar, Tahsil and District Guna. Plaintiff claimed to have been given Patta of the aforesaid suit land vide order dated 11/1/1997 and since then he is in possession thereof doing cultivation. Defendant No. 2 in order to grab the suit land moved an application before the SDM on the premise that the suit land is of Bhudaan Board and earlier Patta thereof was given to his father -in -law and after his death, he has succeeded the same and continued to be in possession thereof. On such application, SDM has prepared a report without affording opportunity to the plaintiff. Based on the aforesaid report, Collector, Guna had invoked suo motu revisional jurisdiction and registered case No. 27/03 -04 and issued notice to plaintiff. As plaintiff was approached by the local Patwari alongwith defendant no. 2 over the suit land on 30/10/2004 and threatened for forcible dispossession in the event he did not deliver possession of the suit land to the defendants, plaintiff filed the instant suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

(3.) ON aforesaid pleadings, trial court framed issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. Upon critical evaluation of entire evidence on record with due advertence to the pleadings of the parties, trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, first appellate court has again threadbare discussed the evidence brought on record and found that vide Khasra Panchshala, Ex. D/1, the suit land is reserved in the pool of government Bhudaan Board and plaintiff not being a landless person, could not have been awarded Patta of the suit land as a landless person and, therefore, the proceedings before the Collector by exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction were found to be legal and proper. As plaintiff has lost his status on account of cancelling of Patta, he has no right to seek declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. With the aforesaid findings, first appellate court dismissed the suit and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.