STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RAMKUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant-State of Madhya Pradesh has assailed the judgment and decree of the trial Court decreeing the suit of plaintiff-respondent.

(2.) On 20-11-1993 plaintiff filed a suit claiming that he is owner and is in possession of the suit property, description whereof is given in the plaint. According to the plaint averments, originally the suit property was owned and possessed by Maharaja Bhawani Singh Joo Deo, who was Ex-Ruler of Chhatarpur and the suit property was his personal property. In the year 1961 the said Ruler gifted the suit property to plaintiff and he was also put in possession. On 21-12-1990 a formal registered gift deed was duly executed by the Ex-Ruler in favour of plaintiff. According to plaintiff, the suit land is not a Government land and plaintiff is in possession of the suit land continuously as owner since 1961. The Nazul Officer of Chhatarpur tried to allot the suit land to one Lakhanlal Tiwari on lease in Revenue Case No. 13/A-20/1/91-92 in which plaintiff submitted objections before the Nazul Officer. However, they were dismissed on 25-6-1993. While rejecting the objections of plaintiff, the Nazul Officer held that the suit property is a Government land and not a private land. According to plaintiff, suit land is not a Government land but was the private property of ex-ruler and the Nazul Officer had no jurisdiction to grant lease of the same to others and in case lease is granted it would cause irreparable injury to plaintiff. Plaintiff also claimed adverse possession on the suit property. A notice under Section 80, CPC was sent on 30-8-93 which was duly served on 3-9-93 and thereafter the present suit has been filed.

(3.) Defendant-appellant resisted the suit by liling written statement denying the adverse averments contained in the plaint and pleaded therein that the proceedings before the Nazul Officer were perfectly valid and legal and the Nazul Officer was justified in declaring the suit land is a Government land. It has been emphatically denied that the suit land is a private land.