RAMAPATI BHATTACHARYA Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC by the appellant plaintiff against rejection of his application by order dated 15th May 1998 for grant of temporary injunction, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in relation to the suit lands Survey No. 21, Area 5.85 Acres in Village Purva, Tah & Distt. Jabalpur.

(2.) THE case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint is that he purchased the suit land from its original owner Umesh Tiwari on 21.1.1976 and since then he is Continuously in cultivating possession of the same and has also constructed an agricultural house thereon. The application for grant of temporary injunction has been opposed by the Collector and the Nazul Officer, Jabalpur as also the MP. Housing Board who are arrayed as defendants. In their written reply it has been stated that the plaintiff has not acquired any valid title of the land in suit. The original owner Umesh Tiwari had filed a return with regard to the land on 16.10.1979 in proceedings under section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Umesh Tiwari had purchased the land by registered sale deed on 7.10.69 and it was owned and possessed by him on the 'appointed date' under the Act. The competent authority under the Act by order made on 18.3.81 directed vesting of 2,38,680 sq.ft. of land as surplus from out of Khasra Nos. with the total area 2.365 hectares (5.85 acres). A formal intimation under section 10 of the Act was issued on 17.3.82 and by another intimation issued on 27th May 1983 the land in suit stood vested in the State as surplus land. In order to accommodate the earthquake victims the land which has vested in the State has been allotted to M.P. Housing Board on 22.4.98. The Board has taken possession of the land and was about to make preparation for construction thereon for the earthquake victims when this instant suit came to be filed. The prayer for injunction has been opposed on the ground that the plaintiff has even no semblance of a title to the land and the documents produced by him in support of the plaint do not prima facie make out any case in his favour for grant of injunction.

(3.) IN this appeal Shri Girish Shrivastava learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff contends that the proceedings under Ceiling Act for vesting of the so called surplus lands are all illegal. It is contended that in the absence of a master plan of Jabalpur 'Agricultural land' within the 'Urban agglomeration' did not vest in the State. Reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1993 SC 2465 [Smt. Atia Mohammadi Begum v. State of M.P.]. The other ground urged is that the plaintiff being in actual cultivating possession of the land and having been shown as such in the Revenue records, he was entitled to be noticed and heard by the Ceiling authorities before vesting of the lands of which he had acquired title from its previous owner.