MEERA JAMIL Vs. BHOPAL VIKAS PRADHIKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that initially the plaintiff/appellant No. 1 instituted a suit for perpetual injunction with respect to the land comprised in Survey No. 244, in area 9.70 decimal, situated at Village Shahpura, Tehsil Huzoor, District Bhopal. Subsequently, other plaintiffs/appellants joined in the suit. The land was stated to be owned by Prem Chand Saxena, on the strength of the registered sale deed dated 22-12-1957. After his death, the suit land devolved upon the present appellants being his legal heirs. Their names were duly mutated in the revenue records. The suit land was duly demarcated in the year 1988 by the Nazur Officer, Bhopal. The demarcation was again made by the Court of Tehsildar Huzoor on 5-6-1995 in presence of the Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer of the Bhopal Development Authority. It has been further averred in the plaint that the Government of Madhya Pradesh allotted the land adjacent to the suit land for the purpose of rehabilitation of hutment dwellers of Ishwar Nagar. However, the Chief Executive Officer of Bhopal Development Authority started making encroachment on the suit land under the garb of aforesaid process of rehabilitation. He has illegally and unauthorisedly carved out plots in the suit land despite objections by the plaintiffs. The suit was initially filed in the month of June, 1995. Subsequently, by way of amendment it has been inserted that the defendant No. 1 Bhopal Development Authority has settled about 125 'Jhuggiwalas' on the suit land. It is further averred that the said authority has constructed roads and laid down pipe lines on the suit land for the supply of water to such 'Jhuggiwalas'. This action is stated to have been taken by the employees of the Bhopal Development Authority after issuance of order of temporary injunction against it. The plaintiff initially prayed for issuance of permanent injunction from making any interference into her possession over the suit land. However, by way of amendment a decree for mandatory injunction has been sought against the defendants for removal of 'Jhuggiwalas' and restoration of possession in favour of the original plaintiff as well as plaintiffs/appellants No. 2 to 5 who were impleaded subsequently in the suit as co-plaintiffs.

(2.) The suit has been opposed by the defendants. It has been specifically averred that no piece of land comprised in the suit land has been allotted by the defendants. It is specifically averred that the land comprised in Survey Nos. 34 and 234/1/1 has been allotted for the rehabilitation of 'Jhuggiwalas'. The defendants denied that they have been made any encroachment or have made allotment of any of the part of the disputed land or have constructed roads on it or have laid down pipe lines.

(3.) The suit was tried ex parte against the State of Madhya Pradesh since it was not represented by its lawyer.