SHEELAWANTI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs appeal under section 100, C.P.C. and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.8.1982, passed by II Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Sagar in Civil Appeal No. 30 -A of 76, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 2.7. 1976, passed by I Civil Judge, Class II, Sagar in Civil Suit No. 3 -A of 72 and dismissing the appellant's suit for declaration of title over the suit lands and permanent injunction restraining the respondent from disturbing his possession.

(2.) THE suit land is a plot measuring 13854 Sq. feet shown as 'ABCD' in the plaint map situated at Tilak Gunj, Sagar. Case of the appellant is that the suit plot was the personal property of Hardas Dubey, the then Malguzar of the village. The said Hardas Dubey sold the plot to Bhagwati Prasad on 30th March, 1951 vide a registered sale -deed. Ex. P. 2. The said Bhagwati Prasad's son Shri Gopi Krishna inherited the plot after the death of Bhagwati Prasad as Karta of the family and sold the same to the appellant for a sum of Rs. 3,000/ - by a registered sale -deed, dated 30th November, 1970, Ex. P -l. The appellant claims to be in possession of the suit plot since then. It was this specifiee case that on coming into force of the Abolition of Proprietory Rights Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') a dispute between Bhagwati Prasad and the State Government had arisen about the ownership of the disputed plot. At that time the respondent State claimed that the suit plot was not the personal property of Hardas Dubey and had vested in the State Government under section 3 of the Act. The dispute was referred by Bhagwati Prasad for decision of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Sagar under section 57(2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the code'). The Sub -Divisional Officer, by his order dated 15th July, I960, Ex. P -8 held that the sale of the suit plot in favour of Bhagwati Prasad was valid and therefore, the land did not vest in the State Government. The learned S.D.O., therefore, directed that Bhagwati Prasad's name be recorded in Bhumiswami rights in all revenue records. It appears that inspite of the aforesaid order, the plot was not recorded in the name of Bhagwati Prasad and continued to be treated as 'Nazul' in unauthorised occupation of the appellant. On 27.9.1971 the Tahsildar ordered eviction of the appellant from the suit plot exercising his powers under section 248 (I) of the Code, (Ex. D -4). It was thereafter that the appellant served notice under section 80, C.P.C. and filed the present suit. The defence of the respondents was that the suit plot had vested in the State Government under section 6 of the Act and therefore it became the property of the respondents. According to them, the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Ex. P -8, was void and could not give any benefit to the appellants. The learned trial Judge, on consideration of material on record held that the appellant had acquired legal and valid title over the suit land because of sale -deed in their favour. Relying on the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Ex.P -8, the learned Judge also held that the suit land did not vest in the Government. The suit was accordingly decreed. The learned lower appellate Court was, however, of the opinion that the order of the Suh -Divisional Officer, Ex. P -8 was without jurisdiction and therefore, there was no basis of title of the appellant over the suit land. That is how the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set -aside.

(3.) SUBMISSION of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer being the order of Competent Authority had become final in the absence of any challenge to it in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and was, therefore, determinative of the rights of the parties. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the right of Bhagwati Prasad over the suit plot could not be challenged. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that a question like the present one could not have been decided by the Sub -Divisional Officer under section 57 of the Code and therefore the order is without jurisdiction. Relying on section 6 of the Act learned counsel submits that the transfer being made after 16th March, 1960 was void.