RAM DAYAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants/plaintiffs have filed this appeal under S. 100 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 7-12-1996, passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Sidhi in Civil Regular Appeal No.55-A/1995, whereby the judgment and decree dated 12-3-1968 regarding of suit passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Baidhan in Civil Suit No. 11-A/1980 has been upheld.

(2.) As per factual matrix of the case the appellants had filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents in respect of Revenue land bearing Survey Nos. 348, 349/3 and 354 total area 19.50 acres situated at village Madhauli Tahsil Singrauli District Sidhi M.P. According to the appellants, they had possession of the said land since last 40 years, earlier as "Gair Hakdar Kashtkar"; and on coming into force the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") they have acquired the right of Bhumiswami. It is also pleaded that some Patta was given to the appellants, by the then erstwhile Estate on coming into force the aforesaid Code. An application under S. 162 of the Code was filed before Tahsjldar, on consideration by order dated 13-2-1965 in Revenue Case No. 93A/74/6364 appellants names were directed to be mutated as Bhumiswami. Such order was not challenged by respondent No.1 within prescribed limitation but subsequently in a suo motu revision bearing No. 12 Nigrani/73-78 by order dated 23-6-1996 Collector Sidhi has set aside order. The same was challenged before the Commissioner Rewa in Revision No. 3-A/74-75-76 but it was dismissed on dated 20-3-1977 on which the Board of Revenue was approached by the appellants by Revision No. 183-IIIrd 77 with revision No. 356-1/77 but appellants could not get success and it was also dismissed by order dated 20-7-1979 then the impugned suit to declare them Bhoomiswami and also for protecting their possession was filed by the appellants.

(3.) By filing written statement on behalf of respondent No. 1 State, it was contended that the lands in question are reserve forest land and was never remained in possession of the appellants. The order passed by Tahsildar Singroli in favour of appellants was illegal as it was under the contravention of the concerning Rules and Regulations. Appellants had no rights or title over the aforesaid land, the suit is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the suit.