Daryaab Singh vs Soudan Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8844 MP

                                                   1
                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                           AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                            ON THE 4th OF JULY, 2022

                                       SECOND APPEAL No. 488 of 2022

                           Between:-
                      1.   DARYAAB SINGH S/O SHRI PHOOL SINGH,
                           AGED         ABOUT       50   YEARS,
                           OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE RESIDENT OF
                           VILLAGE KARHOD TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
                           RAISEN M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      2.   MOHAN SINGH S/O SHRI PHOOL SINGH, AGED
                           ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
                           R/O VILLAGE KARHOD TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
                           RAISEN M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      3.   AMAR SINGH S/O PHOOL SINGH , AGED ABOUT
                           40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O
                           VILLAGE KARHOD TAHSIL AND DISTRICT
                           RAISEN M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      4.   DEVABAI D/O PHOOL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 38
                           YEAR S, OCCUPATION: W/O BHAGWAT SINGH
                           R/O VILLAGE KARHOD TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
                           RAISEN M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      5.   SHRIBAI D/O PHOOL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 36
                           Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O
                           VILLAGE KARHOD TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
                           RAISEN M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                       .....APPELLANTS
                           (BY SHRI NEERAJ PATHAK-ADVOCATE)

                           AND

                      1.   SOUDAN SINGH S/O KUNJILAL OCCUPATION:
                           NIL R/O VILLAGE KARHOD TEHSIL AND
                           DISTRICT RAISEN M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      2.   KAMAR SINGH S/O LATE SHRI SHANKARLAL
Signature Not
 SAN
Verified                   OCCUPATION: NILL R/O VILLAGE KARHOD
                           TEHSIL AND DISTRICT RAISEN M.P. (MADHYA
Digitally signed by        PRADESH)
KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Date: 2022.07.05
17:53:41 IST
                              2
3.      HUKUM SINGH S/O LATE SHRI SHANKARLAL
        OCCUPATION: NILL R/O VILLAGE KARHOD
        TEHSIL AND DISTRICT RAISEN M.P. (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

4.      LAXMI BAI W/O LATE SHRI SHANKARLAL
        OCCUPATION: NILL R/O VILLAGE KARHOD
        TEHSIL AND DISTRICT RAISEN M.P. (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

5.      KHET SINGH S/O KISHORILAL OCCUPATION:
        NILL R/O VILLAGE KARHOD TEHSIL AND
        DISTRICT RAISEN M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

6.      RATAN    SINGH  S/O   SHRI  KISHORILAL
        OCCUPATION: NILL R/O VILLAGE KARHOD
        TEHSIL AND DISTRICT RAISEN M.P. (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

7.      THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH ITS COLLECTOR
        DISTRICT RAISEN M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
        (BY KU. KAMLESH TAMRAKAR-PANEL LAWYER FOR
        RESPONDENT-7/STATE )

      This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                    ORDER

Heard on the question of admission.

This second appeal has been filed by appellants/defendants Daryaab Singh, Mohan Singh, Amar Singh, Deva Bai and Shribai challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2022 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Raisen in RCA No. 30/21 whereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2021 passed by learned 2nd Civil Judge Junior Division Raisen in RCSA No. 63-A/18, whereby learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs-Soudan Singh, Kamar Singh, Hukum Singh and Laxmi Bai filed with regard to survey Nos. 496/1 area 1.129 hectare and 555/2 areas 0.047 decimal, which was filed only for permanent injunction based on title.

Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that upon application filed under S. 131 MPLRC (Ex P/5) against the respondents 5 & 6 Khet Singh and Ratan Singh, Tehsildar passed order on 27.11.2014 (Ex.P/11), which was confirmed by SDO on 04.08.2017 and by Commissioner, Bhopal Division Bhopal on 24.05.2018. He submits that in the light of these orders passed by revenue authorities, the appellants/defendants are having right of way which is being used by them for a period of more than 50 years and there is no other way.

Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that by way of application under S. 131 MPLRC, appellants/defendants claimed relief only against respondents 5 & 6/Khet Singh and Ratan Singh but the Tehsildar has granted relief beyond the relief they claimed in the application and he submits that appellants/defendants does not want any relief against the respondents/plaintiffs 1-4.

In view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and from the record, it is clear that by the impugned judgment and decree learned Courts below have granted relief of permanent injunction only in favour of the present respondents 1-4/plaintiffs, who were not party to the proceedings under S. 131 MPLRC.

As such in view of the aforesaid and in view of the statement given by

learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, this appeal is dismissed as not pressed.

However, liberty is reserved with the appellants/defendants to approach the Tehsildar with a view to get clarification with regard to the proceedings instituted by the present appellants/defendants under S. 131 MPLRC and finalized by Tehsildar vide its order dated 27.11.2014, confirmed by SDO on

04.08.2017 as well as by the Commissioner on 24.05.2018 whereby relief of the way to the land of the present appellants/defendants was given only against the respondents 5-6/defendants Khet Singh and Ratan Singh and not against the present respondents 1-4/plaintiffs.

With the aforesaid observations and liberty this appeal is dismissed.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE Pallavi