STATE OF M P Vs. BABULAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal was admitted on 8.10.2003 on the following substantial question of law:

(2.) ON perusal of the plaint, it is seen that the plaintiff-respondent pleaded that the suit land bearing survey No. 1709, in area 1.84 acres, situated at village Bagauta (Narsinghgarhpurva), District Chhatarpur was owned by Mahadeo Prasad father of the plaintiff in his 'Bhumiswami' rights. It was entered in the revenue records in the name of Mahadeo Prasad as 'Bhumiswami'. 0.53 decimal of land out of the aforesaid was sold by Mahadeo Prasad to one Chhedilal Gupta on 18.5.1945. The remaining land, in area 1.31 acres continued in the possession of Mahadeo Prasad during his life time. The subject matter of the suit giving rise to the present appeal is described as suit land hereinafter. The suit land devolved upon the plaintiff-respondent after the death of Mahadeo Prasad, being his son. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff-respondent has been continuously in possession of the suit land from the life time of his father. The suit land was wrongly recorded as Government land which came into notice of the plaintiff in the year 1984. An application for correction of the revenue record was submitted by the plaintiff with respect to the suit land, which was dismissed by the Tahsildar on 20.4.1984. On appeal, the SDO Chhatarpur vide his order dated 20.6.1988 set aside the order of the Tahsildar and remanded the matter. Again an order was passed on 10.11.1995 against the plaintiff. Appeal preferred against the same was also dismissed by the SDO, Chhatarpur on 30.9.1997. Consequently, the plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for declaration of title. In the alternative, it was pleaded that in case he is found to be not in possession of the suit land, a decree for restoration of possession be passed in his favour.

(3.) STATE of Madhya Pradesh submitted its written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff-respondent. The defence of the defendant State was that the suit land was entered in the record of settlement as Government land and the State of M.P. is its owner. It was further contended that Mahadeo Prasad was not the 'Bhumiswami' of the suit land and it was never in his possession. The possession of the plaintiff-respondent has also been denied. It is further contended that the judgment passed in the suit instituted by Pannalal Gupta against the State of M.P. has no bearing on the present case as it was in respect of only 0.53 decimal of the land. Moreover, the encroachment of Pannalal Gupta was duly removed. Since the suit land is a Government land, the suit is liable to be dismissed.