Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amarjeet Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 December, 2023
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 5 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 38 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
AMARJEET SINGH S/O MOTI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 67
YEAR S, VILL BEEDA P.S. SAMARIYA TEH SIRMOUR
DISTT REWA (MP)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI VIVEK BADERIYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH :
COLLECTOR, REWA, DISTT. REWA (M P)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. GARIMA TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE )
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff
challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2007 passed by 4th Addl.
District Judge, Rewa in regular civil appeal no.40-A/2005 affirming the judgment
and decree dated 18.08.2005 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Sirmour, District
Rewa in civil suit no.139A/02 whereby appellant/plaintiff's suit filed for
declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of agricultural land
Khasra nos.268 area 0.28 acre, 270 area 2.52 acre and 271 area 9.37 acre
situated in Village Gondha, Tehsil Sirmour, District Rewa, has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the then Pawaidar
Lal Harprasad Singh @ Nakul Singh in Samvat 2001, gave the suit land to
plaintiff's father Moti Singh for cultivation and since then plaintiff's father and
thereafter plaintiff is in cultivating possession of the land. He further submits
that after coming into force of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, the
plaintiff acquired bhumiswami rights and this fact has been proved by plaintiff
by producing PAT (Ex.P/1) and oral evidence, but learned Courts below have
erred in dismissing the suit ignoring entire admissible evidence. With the
aforesaid submissions, he prays for admission of the second appeal.
3. Ms. Garima Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer supports the impugned judgment
and decree passed by the Courts below and prays for dismissal of the second
appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. First of all, there is no documentary evidence available on record to prove
that alleged Pawaidar Lal Harprasad Singh @ Nakul Singh was Pawaidar of the
land in question and secondly, after getting the land on so called PAT in Samvat
2001, the plaintiff's father Moti Singh did not get his name mutated in the
revenue record and undisputedly there is no documentary evidence available on
record in that regard.
6. Kista Bandi Khatoni of Samvat 1981 to 2000 shows that the nature of suit
land was recorded as Pokhri (Pond) and in another Kista Bandi Khatoni, it is
recorded as Kadim.
7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid entry, learned first appellate Court
vide paragraph 23 of its judgment has observed that after coming into force of
Pawai Abolition Act, the land which was recorded as Pokhri (Pond) had vested
in the State Government.
8. Learned Courts below after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, have come to conclusion that the
plaintiff has failed to prove his case of giving land by Lal Harprasad Singh @
Nakul Singh to plaintiff's father Moti Singh and of adverse possession, pleaded
in the plaint.
9. After perusal of the entire record, this Court does not find any illegality or
perversity in the findings recorded by learned Courts below.
10. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, this second
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine under Order 41 rule 11 CPC.
However, no order as to the costs.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
pb
