RAMRAJ Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under section 100 CPC by the plaintiff is directed against the concurring judgment and decree dated 21/12/2005 passed in civil appeal No.98A/2005 by District Judge, Sheopur District Sheopur affirming the judgment and decree dated 30/07/2005 passed in civil suit No.33A/2004 by I Civil Judge, ClassII, Sheopur, plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) SUIT land admeasuring 1 bigha out of 07 bigha 19 biswa is falling in survey No.195 in village Khatoli district Sheopur and marked as "A,B,C,D" in the map attached with the plaint (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land'). It is contended in the plaint that the plaintiff had purchased the land falling in survey No.196 vide the registered sale deed dated 17/08/1979 alongwith the suit land and since then, he is in possession thereon. Patta awarded by defendant/State as regards suit land in favour of defendant No.4 is illegal. It is further contended that when the defendant No.4 tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land in the year 1984, a civil suit No.311A/1984 was filed by the plaintiff and the same was decreed on 29/08/1985. The plaintiff even then sought to be dispossessed from the suit land whereas for the last 24 years, he is in possession thereof. It is also contended that the suit land is being used for agricultural purpose and, therefore, under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Krishi Prayojan Ke Liye Upayog Ki Ja Rhi Dakhal Rahit Bhoomi Par Bhoomiswami Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana (Vishesh Upabandh) Adhiniyam, 1984 (Act No.30 of 1984), the plaintiff has acquired the title thereon.

(3.) DEFENDANTS No.2 and 4 have also filed written statement and denied plaint allegations. It is submitted that the suit land has been given to him as a service land in favour of defendant No.4, Pannalal as he has performed the duties of chowkidar in the area. Besides, it is submitted that the plaintiff claims to be 25 years old and asserts that he is in possession over the suit land for the last 24 years; further, he claims to have filed a suit in the year 1984 when he was just 08 years which are totally unrealistic situations. That apart, in the said suit, the State Government was not impleaded as a party. The suit land was a charnoi land and, therefore, the alleged order/decree obtained on 29/08/1985 is in fact of no consequence which appears to have been product of collusive suit. Hence, plaintiff cannot gain any advantage out of it.