Anup Singh vs M/S Satellite Infra And Real ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 17644 MP

                           - : 1 :-
                                               M.P. No. 6298/2023


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT INDORE
                      BEFORE
          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

             ON THE 20th OF OCTOBER, 2023

             MISC. PETITION No. 6298 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
ANUP SINGH S/O UMMEDSINGH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGE KAILOD HALA, TEHSIL
AND DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                            .....PETITIONER
(SHRI AJAY BAGADIA, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI
MURTUZA BOHRA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.)

AND
   M/S SATELLITE INFRA AND REAL ESTATE P. LTD. AUTHORIZED
   SIGNATORY 1-6/3, NEW PALASIYA, INDORE AND AT PRESENT G-2,
1.
   JAORA TOWER, 22/2, MANORAMAGANJ, INDORE (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
   M/S. SATELLITE INFRA AND REAL ESTATE P. LTD. THROUGH
   DIRECTOR ATUL SURANA S/O LATE SURENDRA SINGH SURANA
2.
   R/O 1-6/3, NEW PALASIYA, INDORE . PRESENT ADD. G-2, JAORA
   TOWER, 22/2, MANORAMAGANJ, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
   M/S. SATELLITE INFRA AND REAL ESTATE P. LTD. THROUGH
   DIRECTOR PUSHPENDRA THAKUR R/O 1-6/3, NEW PALASIYA,
3.
   INDORE . PRESENT ADD. G-2, JAORA TOWER, 22/2,
   MANORAMAGANJ, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
   ANWAR KHAN S/O MO. ISMAIL KHAN OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
4.
   R/O 743, AZAD NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
   ASHALATA JAIN W/O BHAGCHAND JAIN, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
5. OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD R/O - 12/9 (12/1) VIJAY NAGAR,
   INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
   BHAGCHAND JAIN S/O MOTILAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
6. OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O -12/1, VIJAY NAGAR INDORE
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. THROUGH THE COLLECTOR THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

3
                                    - : 2 :-
                                                          M.P. No. 6298/2023


     DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS.)


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

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 8.8.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Indore and order dated 9.10.2023 passed by 11th Additional District Judge, Indore whereby he has been denied the relief of temporary injunction.

2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under :

According to the petitioner/plaintiff he is the owner of land bearing Survey No. 213 area 0.012 Hect. situated at Village Kailod Hala, District Indore. The defendants got executed a sale-deed dated 22.11.2006 by way of forgery. According to the petitioner he is in possession of the aforesaid land continuously and cultivating the same. The land has not been divided, demarcated and mutated in the name of defendants. Along with the plaint, the petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C.

The defendants appeared and filed the reply by submitting that two sale-deeds were executed in respect of two different lands owned by the plaintiff. The sale-consideration was paid, possession was handed over, NOCs were obtained and thereafter they applied for diversion of the land. Their names have been mutated in the revenue record. Now the prize of the land in question has gone high, therefore,

- : 3 :-

M.P. No. 6298/2023

the plaintiff has filed the suit to blackmail them.

3. Learned Civil Court after considering the entire material on record has dismissed the application for temporary injunction as signatures of the plaintiff on the registered sale-deed are there, demarcation, development permission and NOC by the authorized department are in favour of the defendants. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the defendants. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiff filed an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C. which came to be dismissed, hence the present petition before this Court.

4. Shri Bagadiya, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that when the suit for declaration is filed and the plaintiff is in possession of the land in question, then in all the circumstances, the possession should be protected by the Court. He has referred to the legal notice sent by the defendants in which they have admitted that the plaintiff is in possession of the land in question, therefore, the plaintiff's possession is not in dispute, hence the same is liable to be protected. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgments of the apex Court in the case of M. Gurudas V/s. Rasaranjan : (2006) 8 SCC 367; Ashwinkumar K. Patel V/s. Upendra J. Patel : (1999) 3 SCC 161; judgments of this Court in the case of Nagar Palika Parishad, Malajkhand V/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd. : 2009 (1) MPHT 48; and Gajendra Singh V/s. Man Singh & others : 2000 (2) MPLJ 316.

After having heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the material available on record.

- : 4 :-

M.P. No. 6298/2023

5. Two sale-deeds were executed by the plaintiff which are filed as Annexures P/1 and P/2 along with this petition. Both the sale-deeds are in respect of different lands but identically worded and duly executed and registered as per law. Thereafter, the defendants applied for diversion, diversion permission was obtained from Town & Country Development Department after obtaining the NOCs from various departments. These documents are also not in dispute. The only allegation is that at the time of execution of first sale-deed, the documents in respect of second sale-deed were prepared and got signed without his knowledge, hence fraud was placed with him. Since the year 2006, the plaintiff remained silent. No document has been filed to show that the plaintiff is cultivating the land in question. The defendants came up with an specific plea that the plaintiff had handed over the possession at the time of execution of sale-deed but forcibly entered in the open land. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court have rightly declined the relief of temporary injunction when in support of the averments no document has been filed by the plaintiff to discard the sale-deed in favour of the defendants. No document in respect of payment of land rent, cultivation since 2006 has been filed to support the plea of possession. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed in limine.

( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE Alok/-

3Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV Date: 2023.10.21 13:35:18 +05'30'