KAMLA BAI Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by two Courts-below. The District Judge, bhopal, in Civil Appeal No. 117-A/02 as per judgment and decree dated 29-1-2003 has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 31-10-2002 in Civil Suit No. 4-A/2002.

(2.) THE plaintiff-appellant filed a civil suit for declaration that the proceedings held by the State of M. P. and the competent authority under the urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act of 1976') with respect to land admeasuring 6 acres bearing Survey No. 399/2 situated at village Barkhed Pathani, owned by the plaintiff was null and void and prayed by issuance of permanent injunction for protecting the possession. The plaintiff averred that land was purchased by her on 5-5-1975 from one Lakshman s/o Bhagchand Sahu through a registered sale-deed (Ex. P. 4) and her name was entered in the revenue records as Bhumiswami. She had been since then cultivating the land and paying revenue. In the year 1977 she came to know that entries in the revenue papers were recorded in the name of State of M. P. and her name had been deleted in consequence of the order passed in the proceedings initiated under the Act of 1976. Plaintiff had no notice of the proceedings. Plaintiff filed an application with the State of M. P. challenging the proceedings under the Act of 1976. The application was kept pending. No decision was taken. Plaintiff never filed any return under the Act of 1976. No notice was given, as such the proceedings taken behind her back were not binding.

(3.) THE defendants in their written statement contended that husband of the plaintiff Shri Bhagwan Patil had filed a return under section 6 of the Act of 1976 before the competent authority with respect to the disputed land. As per the return filed by the husband on behalf of the family the competent authority had declared 5. 72 acres land as surplus and obtained the possession. The land had been vested in the State of M. P. The land was the family property of Bhagwan patil, it was declared surplus. The plaintiff was not in possession of the land. She was not having any subsisting right, title or interest, as such prayed for dismissal of the suit. The trial Court has held that plaintiff constituted joint Hindu family along with Bhagwan Patil. Her husband Bhagwan Patil filed the return in the capacity of his being "karta" (manager) of the family and in the ceiling case 5. 72 acres of land was declared as surplus. The possession of the land had been obtained by the State in the year 1982. The suit filed in the year 2000 was barred by limitation, aggrieved thereby the plaintiff filed appeal before the District court, Bhopal. Same has also been dismissed as per impugned judgment and decree. Consequently the successive appeal has been preferred in this Court.