The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr vs Pushpendra Singh Kirar (Deleted) ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 3621 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr vs Pushpendra Singh Kirar (Deleted) ... on 7 February, 2024

Author: Roopesh Chandra Varshney

Bench: Roopesh Chandra Varshney

                                1
 IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
                  ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                  SECOND APPEAL No. 156 of 2017

BETWEEN:-
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      THE COLLECTOR, GORKHI CAMPUS, GWALIOR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    THE NAZUL TEHSILDAR, GORKHI           CAMPUS,
      GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                         .....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI SUSHANT TIWARI - GOVT. ADVOCATE )

AND
1.    PUSHPENDRA SINGH KIRAR (SINCE DIED NAME
      DELETED) THROUGH LRS.
      (a) ARVIND SINGH S/O LATE PUSHPENDRA SINGH
      KIRAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O SHABAD
      PRATAP ASHRAM LASHKAR GWALIOR (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

      (b) VIKRAM SINGH S/O LATE SHRI PUSHPENDRA
      SINGH KIRAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O
      SHABD PRATAP AASHRAM LASHKAR GWALIOR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

      (c) KEDAR SINGH S/O LATE SHRI KHALAK SINGH,
      AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O NAYAGANJ KILA
      GATE GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI P.C.CHANDIL - ADVOCATE )

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

This appeal under Section 100 of CPC is directed by appellants/State

against the concurring judgment and decree dated 29/10/2015 passed by Eighth Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 32/2015; whereby, the judgment and decree dated 10/5/2017 passed by Fourth Civil Judge, Class I, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 165-A/2005 has been affirmed.

2 . Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction and in the plaint it is mentioned that land bearing survey No. 774 ad-measuring area 16 biswa situate at village Ahukhana, Gwalior be declared to be of his ownership and injunction be granted against the State Government. It was also pleaded that in SAmwat 2007 name of plaintiff's father is mutated in the revenue

record and the possession is also shown in his favour and after death of his father, he is in possession. It was also mentioned that the proceedings under Section 248 of MPLRC were void and without jurisdiction because notice has not been received by the plaintiff and all the proceedings were ex parte.

3. Defendants/appellants/State filed written statement and denied all the plaint allegations. It is specifically denied that land was given by the so called Jamindar Dharmdas to the father of the plaintiffs because name of Jamindar was not recoded in the revenue record. Land belongs to the State and therefore, construction of the house was illegal, which has already been demolished and plaintiffs is not not in possession of the suit land. If any time, the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land then it was only in the capacity of encroacher.

4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Trial Court upon detailed examination of evidence on record, decreed the suit.

5. On appeal, the first appellate Court,while deciding the appeal dealt with the matter exhaustively with due advertence to oral and documentary evidence

on record, the first appellate court has found that no evidence has been produced by the appellants/State which can prove that plaintiff was in possession of the disputed land as an encroacher. Further the Court found that father of plaintiff got the status of Bhoomiswami on the basis of Patta land. The courts also found that after the death of his father, plaintiff was in continuous possession of the suit land and ultimately affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

6 . After having perused the judgments of both the Courts below, this Court is of the view that the entire gamut of matter is in the realm of facts. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are pure findings of facts which in the opinion of this Court do not warrant any interference under Section 100 of CPC. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Appeal is therefore, dismissed.

(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY) JUDGE JPS/-

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

JAI PRAKASH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, 2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec865c 7633f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a,

SOLANKI postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B8072A2 D8C01433EBD48AE4F609F108CA8F8DE6B522, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 2024.02.08 12:40:23 +05'30'