NAGAR PANCHAYAT ARON Vs. SHANTI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHORT facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff/appellant instituted a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction with allegations that the land comprised in Survey No. 903 in area 0.073 hectare and Survey No. 904 in area 0.721 hectare, situated in Village Aron belonged to the State of Madhya Pradesh. It was granted to Gram Panchayat Aron in the year 1965 for plantation. Gram Panchayat occupied the said land by performing plantation. Adjacent to it, other land comprised in Survey No. 905, 906, 907 and 909 is situated which belongs to defendant/respondent Nos. 1 to 5. On formation of Nagar Palika Aron and thereafter of Nagar Panchayat, Aron, land belonging to Gram Panchayat, Aron stood vested in the plaintiff. It is further alleged that a change was made in the field map by the Revenue Inspector, Aron on 3-12-1994 on account of order dated 11-11-1994 passed by Additional Collector in Case No. 20-A/74-73:74 and of Tehsildar Aron dated 1-12-1994 bearing No. Q/Re/1/94. Change was made in the map of Samwat 2014 (corresponding year 1957-58) after a period of 34 years which is contrary to law.

(2.) PLAINTIFF claimed for the relief that the change made in the settlement map and current map by which in place of survey No. 904, survey No. 905 was mentioned and in place of survey No. 905, survey No. 904 was mentioned, is ineffective and non-binding on the plaintiff and that no interference may be made into the possession of the plaintiff over the land which he holds as survey No. 904 (though it is shown as survey No. 905 in the map).

(3.) LEARNED Trial Judge after hearing the arguments on preliminary issue Nos. 5, 6 and 10, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 3-11-01, holding that the suit of plaintiff was not maintainable. Aggrieved by it, an appeal was preferred unsuccessfully. Thereafter, the present appeal is preferred, which has been admitted and heard on the following substantial question of law :? Whether the Courts below have acted illegally in holding that the suit was not tenable in view of Section 257 (f) M.P. Land Revenue Code ?