STATE OF M.P Vs. RAMPYARI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS / defendants have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2007 passed by VIIIADJ, Bhopal in Civil Appeal No.215 -A/2007. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

(2.) THE plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Ramkishan submitted a statement in regard to land bearing Khasra Nos.246,247,248/1/32,484/32/1,484/32/2 area 6.55 acre situated at village Mugaliya. The competent officer declared some portion of the land as in excess. The plaintiffs pleaded that after declaring the suit land as excess land, its possession was not taken by the competent officer nor any compensation was paid to the plaintiffs. After death of Ramkishan, the names of plaintiffs were recorded as owner of the suit land. However, the competent authority had recorded name of State as owner of the property in the revenue record which was illegal, hence the plaintiffs sought a decree for declaration and permanent injunction. The trial Court, after appreciation of evidence has held that the possession of the land was not taken, hence after coming into force the Repeal Act, the plaintiffs became owner of the suit property and decreed the suit. The aforesaid findings have been affirmed by the appellate Court in appeal.

(3.) THE defence of the defendants/appellants before the trial Court was that possession of the suit land was taken on 27.1.1992 by Kabza receipt Ex.D/2. The trial Court and first appellate Court have recorded findings in para -12 after appreciation of the evidence that possession was not taken by the competent authority vide Ex.D -2 and it was a paper arrangement. It was pleaded by the appellants/ defendants that possession vide Ex.D -2 of the suit land was taken on 27.1.1992 from Ramkishan s/o Chiman. The trial Court and the first appellate Court both recorded a finding that as per khasra entries of the year 1989 -90, it is clear that Ramkishan died in the year 1990 and his legal heirs Nadhiya Bai w/o Ramkishan, Rampyari Bai w/o Kamal Singh, Sajjan Singh, Santosh Kumar and Gyan Singh were recorded as Bhumi Swami of the land, hence it was not possible to take possession of the land from Ramkishan. The Court further recorded a finding that after perusal of Ex.D -2 it is not clear that which officer had taken the possession of the land, hence Ex.D -2 was the paper of nullity. No notice was served on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were not given the compensation of the land, hence after coming into force the Repeal Act in the year 1999, the ownership of the plaintiffs was intact. The name of the State recorded as owner of the suit land in the revenue record was illegal. After perusal of the evidence and the record of the case, in my opinion, the findings of facts recorded by both the Courts are in accordance with law. When the possession of the suit land was not taken by the State, certainly, after coming into force the Repeal Act in the year 1999, the right of the plaintiffs in regard to ownership of the suit land was saved.