Ramgopal Tiwari vs The Tehsildar
2023 Latest Caselaw 1946 MP

                                                                              SA NO.2614/2018

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR

                                                     BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL


                                             ON THE 3rd OF FEBRUARY, 2023

                                             SECOND APPEAL No. 2614 of 2018

                         BETWEEN:-

                                      RAMGOPAL    TIWARI    S/O    SHRI
                                      GURUDUTTA TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 58
                                      YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                                      VILLAGE     GOPALPUR       TEHSIL
                                      DHIMARKHARA DISTT. KATNI (MADHYA
                                      PRADESH)

                                                                          .....APPELLANTS

                         (BY SHRI DHARMESH CHATURVEDI-ADVOCATE)

                         AND

                               1.     THE      TEHSILDAR    TEHSILDAR
                                      DHIMARKHARA DISTT. KATNI (MADHYA
                                      PRADESH)

                               2.     STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. THE
                                      COLLECTOR DISTT-KATNI (MADHYA
                                      PRADESH)

                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS

                         (MS. KAMLESH TAMRAKAR-PANEL LAWYER)

                         1


Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SWETA SAHU
Signing time: 2/7/2023
3:08:12 PM
                                                                                                         SA NO.2614/2018

                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                This appeal coming on for admission this day, the Court passed
                         the following:

                                                                ORDER

This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff

challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2018 passed by District Judge,

Katni in Civil Appeal No.134/2017 affirming the judgment and decree dated

08.09.2017 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Dhimarkheda, District Katni in civil

suit No.56-A/2016 whereby suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and

permanent injunction in respect of land khasra No.333/1 (Kha) and 333/1 (Ga)

area 26.78 acre (new no.528 area 7.49 hectare) situated in Village Gopalpur has

been dismissed.

2. In short the facts are that the plaintiff instituted the suit with the

allegations that his great grand father Ganesh Prasad was owner/bhoomiswami

of the land in question and after his death the land came in the name of

plaintiff's grand father Moujilal and was so recorded in the revenue papers, but

after bandobast the land was recorded by the defendants in the name of State

Government illegally and upon filing application for correction of the revenue

record the application was dismissed by Tahsildar. With these allegations, the

suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 2/7/2023 3:08:12 PM SA NO.2614/2018

3. Defendants appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint

allegations and contended that after bandobast the land was recorded in the

name of State Government and learned Tahsildar dismissed the application for

correction of revenue record on merits, against which no appeal was filed before

the competent revenue court. With these contentions the suit was prayed to be

dismissed.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed issues

and recorded evidence of the parties and after due consideration of the same,

learned trial court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated

08.09.2017, which in appeal filed by the plaintiff-Ramgopal has been affirmed

vide judgment and decree dated 31.08.2018.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant submits that learned courts

below have committed illegality in passing the impugned judgment and decree.

He submits that the revenue record available in the file shows that the land was

recorded in the name of Moujilal in the year 1956-58 and even prior to that, the

land was recorded in the name of Ganesh Prasad in the year 1908-1909. He

further submits that since beginning the land in question has been in possession

of Ganesh Prasad, thereafter Moujilal and now is in possession of the plaintiff,

therefore, learned Tahsildar erred in dismissing the application for correction of

the revenue record, and consequently the learned courts below have also erred

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 2/7/2023 3:08:12 PM SA NO.2614/2018

in dismissing the suit. With these contentions he prays for admission of the

second appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

7. Apparently, the land in question has been recorded in the revenue papers

in the name of Ganesh Prasad and Moujilal, but there is no revenue entry

available on record after the year 1958 and the M.P. Land Revenue Code came

into existence in the year 1959. As there is no revenue entry available on record

of the year 1959 or thereafter and undisputedly the land was recorded in the

name of State Government and further the entries available on record show that

the land was not under cultivation but it was recorded as "Chhote Jhad Ka

Jungle". As such in absence of any challenge to the entry of the name of State

Government after the year 1958 the same cannot be challenged after a long

lapse of time by filing a suit in the year 2015.

8. As such in my considered opinion there is no illegality in the impugned

judgment and decree passed by learned courts below and there being no

involvement of substantial question of law, interference in the impugned

judgement and decree, is hereby declined.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 2/7/2023 3:08:12 PM SA NO.2614/2018

9. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he may be

granted liberty to approach the Bandobast Adhikari, as has been observed by

SDO in the order dated 19.09.2018.

10. Prayer being reasonable, is accepted and subject to the law of limitation,

the appellant is free to approach the competent authority.

11. With the aforesaid liberty, this second appeal is disposed off. However

no order as to costs.

12. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand disposed off.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE

ss

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 2/7/2023 3:08:12 PM