Madhya Pradesh High Court
SA/3034/2018 of GOBARLAL Vs NARAYAN on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 3034 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
GOBARLAL S/O NANURAM DANGI, AGED ABOUT 52YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGE PIPLYAJODHA TEH. MALHARGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA- ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT)
AND
1.NARAYAN S/O RAMLAL DANGI, AGED ABOUT 42YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGEPIPLYA JODHA TEHSIL MALHARGARH (MADHYAPRADESH)
2.COLLECTOR THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHMANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE THE STATE OFMADHYA PRADESH MALHARGARH, (MADHYAPRADESH)MADHYA PRADESH MALHARGARH, (MADHYAPRADESH)
4.TEHSILDAR THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHMALHARGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( MS VINITA DWIVEDI - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENTS NO. 2to 4)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present second appeal has been filed being aggrieved with the judgment and decree passed by the Sixth Additional District Judge, Mandsaur dated 12.09.2018 passed in Regular Civil Appeal 979/2017 by which thejudgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Narayangarh, DistrictMandsaur dated 14.06.2016 passed in Civil No. 43-A/2016 was affirmed bywhich the plaintiff's/appellant suit was dismissed.
2. In nutshell the appellant's case before the trial Court was that in villagePiplya Jodha the appellants do have a pit, which was surrounded by wall fromthree sides ad-measuring 24 ft length and 24 ft. width and were gathering cowdung and household wastes in a pit for a last fifteen years. Respondent No.1was interfering in the possession of that place by making false complaints as hehad no right to interfere with and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have also no rightto dispossess him without following the due process of law and, therefore, heafter notice under Section 80 of the CPC, filed a suit before the trial Court.
3. Respondents No. 2 to 4 filed a written statement and denied the plaintaverments and specifically pleaded that the plaintiff has encroached theGovernment land. A complaint was made before the defendant No.3. On thatthe plaintiff was heard and the order was passed on 04.09.2012 and NaibTehsildar was directed to conduct an inquiry and on that the plaintiff has filedthe suit. The encroached piece of land is a Government land and is of publicuse. Hence, the suit is not maintainable and be dismissed.
4. On the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the issues and afterrecording the evidence dismissed the suit.
5. Being aggrieved with the judgment the appellant/plaintiff has filed firstappeal before the District Judge, Mandsaur. The first appellate Court afterhearing the parties dismissed the appeal. Hence, this Second appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant wasin possession of the pit which was surrounded by wall from three sides. The respondent State has taken the objection that plaintiff has encroached theGovernment land and the trial Court as well as appellate Court hasmisinterpreted the facts and the laws. Plaintiff's evidence was not appreciatedin proper prospective. His possession was mentioned in Exhibit-P-1, but thetrial as well as the appellate Court has wrongly interpreted the entry and wronglydenied the decree to preserve his possession.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Learned trial Court has elaborately discussed regarding possessionand has concluded that there were no dispute regarding pit of the fertilizers andhousehold wastes. The dispute started when the plaintiff has startedconstructing walls on three sides around the pit. Trial Court has also concludedthat the disputed land is a part of Survey No. 317 i.e a Government land. Noevidence has been produced through documents or otherwise to prove thatpossession has been wrongly done. Trial Court has also came to theconclusion that the plaintiff appellant do collaborated with the Revenueauthorities for encroaching the Government land, hence the decree was denied.
9. The appellate Court has also discussed the legal provisions in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the impugned judgment and in paragraph 17 it isdiscussed that the disputed piece of land is a Government land and the appellateCourt has also discussed regarding the possession in paragraph-19 of theimpugned judgment and it was found from the record of 'Khasra Panchshala' from 2004 to 2012 that there is no entry regarding possession of the appellanton the suit land and the entry in Exhibit-P-3 differs from that of Exhibit-D-1 of'Khasra Panchshala' of the same year, which has not been proved by thestatement of the Patwari by order of which the authority he had entered the name of plaintiff in Column No. 12 of the 'Khasra Panchshala - Court has alsonot found settled possession of the appellant on the suit property on that basisthe suit was dismissed.
10. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the record, no perversityis found in the appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question oflaw, arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, theappeal is dismissed in limine.
11. A copy of this order along with record be sent back to the courtsbelow for information and its compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)JUDGErashmi