Shiv Dayal Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4012 MP

                                       1




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                            AT JABALPUR
                                           BEFORE
                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                              ON THE 14th OF MARCH, 2023

                        SECOND APPEAL NO.807 OF 2020

Between:-

1.     SHIV DAYAL SAHU S/O LATE SHRI
       RAMMU @ RAMDAYAL SAHU, AGED
       ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O OPPOSITE OLD
       CHUNGI NAKA KURAI ROAD SAGAR
       (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.     BHOLE PRASAD @ BHOLESHANKAR
       S/O LATE SHRI RAMMU @ RAMDAYAL
       SAHU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O
       SHASTRI WARD, DR. SHUKLA KI GALI
       SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)


                                                                   ..............APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI AVINASH ZARGAR, ADVOCATE)


AND
1.     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
       THR. COLLECTOR SAGAR (MADHYA
       PRADESH)
2.     PRINCIPAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
       TRAINING DISTT-SAGAR (MADHYA
       PRADESH)
                                                                     ............RESPONDENT


(BY MS. KAMLESH TAMRAKAR, PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENTS/STATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This appeal coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the
following:
                                  2




                                     ORDER

This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 01/02/2020 passed by 6 th Additional District Judge, Sagar in Civil Appeal No.52/2019, affirming the judgment and decree dated 06/08/2019 passed by 4 th Civil Judge Class-I, Sagar in Civil Suit No.61-A/2016, whereby learned Courts below have dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of a piece of land admeasuring 4080 sq.ft. which is a part of Khasra No.39 area 0.41 acre situated in Mauja Karila, Tahsil and District Sagar.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs are owner of the disputed land on the basis of registered sale deed dated 25/02/1965 (Ex.P/9) and are residing in the house situated on part of the disputed land. He submits that without there being any sufficient evidence in respect of acquisition of the suit land especially the notification under Section 4&6 of the Land Acquisition Act, learned Courts below have erred in holding that the land in question was acquired by the State Government. He submits that learned Courts below have also erred in holding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the title of their predecessors whereas by producing the certified copy of the previous sale deed, the plaintiffs have proved their title as well as title of their predecessors. As the defendants themselves have issued notice regarding dispossession of the plaintiffs, therefore, possession of the plaintiffs over the land, is an established fact and the plaintiffs should not be dispossessed without due process of law. With these submissions, he prays for admission of the appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents/State supports the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below and prays for dismissal of the second appeal.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The documents in respect of acquisition of land survey No.39 along with other survey numbers have been filed by the respondents/defendants as Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/6 and after taking into consideration the same along with other oral and documentary evidence, learned Courts below have found that the land in question was acquired by the State. Although, there is a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs' father Rammu but in view of the acquisition of land by the State Government from its predecessors, learned Courts below have held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove title of their predecessors.

6. For the reasons best known to the plaintiffs, no khasra entry has been filed by the plaintiffs after the year 1959 or after the year 1965, which could have shown the reality in respect of acquisition of land or possession of the concerning parties over the land in question.

7. The finding in respect of acquisition recorded by the learned Courts below in absence of any other documentary evidence like khasra entries cannot be said to be perverse in the limited scope of second appeal.

8. Resultantly, in my considered opinion, there is no substantial question of law involved in the second appeal, therefore, it fails and is hereby dismissed.

9. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.

                                              (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
RS                                                   JUDGE