Ajit Kumar vs Gran Panchayat Bandari
2023 Latest Caselaw 6853 MP

                                   1
 IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT JABALPUR
                            BEFORE
              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                       ON THE 27 th OF APRIL, 2023
                   WRIT PETITION No. 12604 of 2017

BETWEEN:-
AJIT KUMAR S/O SHRI SHEELCHAND JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, BANDARI, TEHSIL MALTHAUN,
DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                 .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NITIN KUMAR AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    GRAN   PANCHAYAT   BANDARI    THROUGH
      SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT BANDARI,
      TEHSIL MALTHAUN, DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    THROUGH COLLECTOR THE STATE OF MADHYA
      PRADESH, DISTT-SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    VIRENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE BHAIYALAL JAIN,
      AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BANDARI,
      TEH MALTHAUN, DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SOURABH SINGH THAKUR - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.3 AND SHRI AMIT JAIN - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)

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

Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 21.03.2017 passed in Civil Suit No.102/2016 passed by third Civil Judge, Class-II, Khurai, District-Sagar (MP).

2. Petitioner is plaintiff and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are defendant before the trial Court. Petitioner and respondents are hereinafter addressed to according to their position before trial Court.

3. Respondent No.3 has filed an application before civil Judge Class-II, Khurai under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. It is averred by him in application that suit has been filed by plaintiff against Gram Panchayat and State Government. It is submitted that earlier a suit was filed bearing No.37-A/1999 and decided by order dated 13.08.2004. Reference was given to another civil suit filed by One Prakash Dheemar bearing No.81-A/2012 which was filed against defendants. Said civil Suit No.81-A/2012 was also dismissed vide order

dated 23.06.2015. It was submitted that possession of disputed land was given to applicant Virendra Kumar by order passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Khurai on 19.09.2016. It is submitted that applicant is necessary party in civil suit, therefore, he may be impleaded. Plaintiff filed reply to said application and stated therein that respondent No.3-Virendra Kumar does not have any right, title and interest over land in question. Disputed property in civil suit belongs to State Government. Application has been filed with malafide intention and same may be dismissed.

4. Learned trial Court vide its order dated 21.03.2017 allowed the application on ground that applicant was put in possession on land on 19.09.2016. Trial Court considered judgment passed in civil suit No.81-A/2012 dated 23.06.2015 and also judgment dated 13.08.2004 passed in Civil Suit No.37-A/1999. Finding was given that disputed Plot No.628/1 (New No.325) measuring 450 sqft. is in issue in civil suit, therefore, application was allowed. Petitioner has challenged this order on ground that land in question is "Aabadi" land under ownership of State Government. Plaintiff was granted lease vide

order dated 16.03.1996 on 450 sqft. Respondent No.3 does not have any title or interest over said land. Judgment passed in Civil Suit No.37-A/1999 and judgment passed in Civil Suit No.81-A/2012 has no relevance to the facts of the case. Civil Suit No.81-A/2012 was filed by Prakash Dheemar for claiming the title over land against the State Government and Civil Suit No.37-A/1999 was filed for removing encroachment that has been done in front of shop of plaintiff therein. In these circumstances, prayer is made for setting aside of impugned order.

5. Heard the counsel for the petitioner.

6. Trial Court has given reason for allowing application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC and held that applicant therein i.e. respondent No.3 was given possession of land in question by Civil Court and property in both the civil suit is same. Civil Court rightly allowed the application so that applicant therein can show his interest in land, if any, and all issues between interested persons can be settled finally.

7. In view of same, I do not find any error in the order passed by trial Court, hence, writ petition is dismissed.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE shabana Digitally signed by SHABANA ANSARI Date: 2023.05.02 10:50:16 +05'30'