STATE OF M.P. Vs. AYODHYA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision under Sec. 115 of the CPC is preferred challenging the legality of the order dtd. 7/7/2023 in RCSA/95/2017 passed by 6th Civil Judge Junior Division, Ujjain, whereby the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC (Annexure-A-2) has been rejected.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the respondent/plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.RCSA No.95/17 before the learned 4" Civil Judge, Class-IInd, Ujjain for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land bearing survey no. 136/2 area 0.836, 139/2/1 area 0.784, 147/2/1 area 1.431, 151/1 area 0.967, 222/3/2 area 0.136, 223/1/2 area 1.296, 228/1 area 0.794, 229/1/1 area 0.554, 327/ area 0.021, 380/1 area 0.021, 381/1 area 0.315, 382 area 0.125, 383 area 0.042 hectare total Survey No.13 area 7.042 hectare situated at village Ninamwasa Tehsil and Distt. Ujjain. The suit land was under Urban Ceiling therefore proceedings under Urban Ceiling Act were initiated against the original Bhumi Swami of the land namely Ayodhya bai and others. That as per the plaint allegation the present respondents were cultivating the said land in question and had also established a bricks kiln. It is further averred in the plaint that the name of the present respondent was mutated in the name of present respondent (Plaintiffs) by Tehsildar in Mutation case no. 18/A-46/1981-82. The said case was filed against the original Bhumi Swami and Tehsildar after recording evidence mutated the name of the present respondent. That, as per the averments in the plaint notice u/s 10(1) 10(5) and 10(3) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 was issued against the original Bhumi Swami and possession of the land was taken in the 1999 on papers only and no physical possession was taken from the present respondent.

(3.) Petitioners/Defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on 12/7/2022 for rejection of plaint on the ground that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred as per the judgment State of MP. Vs. Ghisalal, (2021) SCC Online SC 1098.