(1.) Challenging the order An nexure P/1 dated 23-3-2004 passed by the Court ot Additional District Judge Sironj in Civil Appeal No 36/03 setting aside the or der of injunction granted to the petitioner by the learned Civil Judge Class I, Lateri Distt Vidisha on 6 9 03 vide Annexure P/2 petitioner has filed this petition
(2.) Petitioner had filed a suit for declaration and injunction with regard to suit land consisting of Survey No 170 area 3 592 hectare The Survey number has been fur ther changed to Survey Nos 170/1 and 170/ 2 Initially, a patta was granted on 18-8-1986 in the name of defendant No 1 Pancha who has been recorded as Bhoomi Swami It is the case of the petitioner that out of the land allotted to Pancha petitioner had pur chased 1 012 hectare and is in possession of the said land with the knowledge of all concerned It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner and Pancha are in possession of the land since more than 32 years but Pancha has illegally sold certain portion of the land occupied by the petitioner to Gyani Bai and Defendant No 2 Bihari who is Kotwar of the Village taking advantage of his status Defendant Bihari has manipulated the records and has entered the name of his wife Gyani Bai Respondent No. 1 in the revenue records holding that petitioner is in possession of the suit property has acuired right to hold possession by virtue of adverse possession and by filing various revenue records, petitioner pointed out that his possession over 1.012 hectares of land cannot be interfered with. Initially on the basis of the material available on record learned trial Court granted injunction and on appeal being filed, appellate Court had quashed the order of injunction and has allowed the appeal. Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel argued that once it is established on the basis of the document Annexure P/6 demarcation report so also the Panchnama prepared vide Annexure P/7 that petitioner was in possession of the land to the extent of 0.630 hectares at the time of filing of the suit, possession of the petitioner to that extent should have been protected. In this regard, he invites my attention to a judgment of this Court in the case of State of M.P. v. M/s.Hariom General Industries, AIR 1992 MP 286. Further inviting my attention to Revenue records Annexure P/8 Shri Sharma argued that once it is established that petitioner is in possession since Samvat 2027 which comes to corresponding year 1979 as per Annexure P/8, his possession should have been protected. Shri Sharma argued that without considering these documents in an arbitrary manner, learned Appellate Court has interfered with the injunction granted by the trial Court which is unsustainable.
(3.) Shri K. N. Gupta, learned Sr. Advocate refuted the aforesaid and inviting my attention to the evidence recorded by the learned Appellate Court in Para 21 of the impugned judgment argued that adverse possession of the petitioner is not established from the records and holding that petitioner is an encroacher over the land, learned Appellate Court has rightly rejected the application for injunction. It is argued by Shri Gupta that injunction in favour of an encroacher cannot be granted. In support of his contention he invites my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rame Gowda (dead) by LRs v. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by LRs, (2004) 1 SCC 769 : AIR 2004 SC 4609.