UMESH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was admitted on the following two substantial questions of law were framed;-

(2.) Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

(3.) The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit seeking decree of permanent injunction in respect of the suit land bearing Nazul Sheet No.30, Plot No.15 ad-measuring 1300 square feet over which the occupation of Hotel (Eatery) was being run by the appellant. The cause of action arose when the appellant received a notice, dated 30.08.1988 from the Nazul Officer, Betul asking him to vacate the suit property till 01.05.1988. Thereafter, it is pleaded by the plaintiff that without following the due process of law prescribed under Section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, the defendants sought to evict the appellant/plaintiff. It was submitted by the appellant/plaintiff that eviction would have entailed loss of goods and items kept in the plot valued at Rs.50,000/- - Rs.60,000/-. The appellant/plaintiff further pleaded that he was an employee of one Sardar Singh in whose favour the lease hold rights were granted by the State and the said Sardar Singh left the suit property after giving possession of the same to the appellant/plaintiff. The appellant/plaintiff also pleaded by way of amendment in the plaint that the said land had settled in his favour by virtue of deeming provision under Section 3 of the M.P. Nagriya Kshetro Ke Bhoomihin Vyakti (Pattadhriti Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana) Adhiniyam, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as '1984 Act' for the sake of brevity); and therefore, plaintiff is the rightful owner of the suit property. With these pleadings the plaintiff approached the trial Court where during subsistence of the suit he was protected by temporary injunction. The suit came to be dismissed by the judgment, dated 21.01.1993 by the trial Court, which after considering documentary and oral evidence, found that the lease deed issued by the State Government in favour of Sardar Singh had expired in 1985-1986; thereafter, it was not renewed and the said Sardar Singh had relinquished the said plot and gone elsewhere. It was in these circumstances the Court found that the functionaries of the State had issued the notice for eviction, which according to the State was in accordance with law.