Bharosa vs Sunil
2024 Latest Caselaw 3736 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Bharosa vs Sunil on 8 February, 2024

                              1      S.A.NO.997/2023


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT G WA L I O R
                          BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI

               ON THE 8th OF FEBRUARY, 2024

               SECOND APPEAL No. 997 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
1. BHAROSA S/O SHRI HALKU,
   AGED    ABOUT    60   YEARS,
   OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
   R/O VILLAGE BANDIPUR TEH
   LATERI   DISTRICT    VIDISHA
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SARJU BAI D/O SHRI HALKU,
2.
   AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O
   DHAMAUKHEDI          TEHASIL
   SIRONJ,   DISTRICT   VIDISHA
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   DHAN BAI D/O SHRI HALKU,
3.
   AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O
   VILL. RAMPUR TEHASIL ARON
   DISTRICT    GUNA    (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
   SUNDAR BAI D/O SHRI HALKU
4.
   W/O SHRI GAJRAJ SINGH, AGED
   ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O VILL.
   TINIKHEDA TEHASIL GUNA,
   DISTRICT    GUNA    (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
                                            .....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI RAHUL YADAV - ADVOCATE )

AND
1. SUNIL S/O SHRI RAGHUVEER,
   AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O
                               2     S.A.NO.997/2023


   VILLAGE     BANDIPUR      TEH
   LATERI    DISTRICT    VIDISHA
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   HEERA BAI, AGED ABOUT 79
2.
   YEARS, R/O VILL. BANDIPUR
   TEHASIL    LATERI    (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
   RAMESH S/O SHRI CHIRONJI,
3.
   AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/O
   VILL. BANDIPUR THASIL LATERI,
   DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
   BADAM BAI D/O SHRI CHIRONJI
4.
   W/O SHRI CHHATAR SINGH,
   AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O
   VILL. PYASI TEHASIL SIRONJ,
   DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
   TURSA BAI D/O SHRI CHIRONJI
5.
   W/O SHRI RATAN SINGH, AGED
   ABOUT 34 YEARS, VILL. PIPRODA
   TEHSIL AND DISTRICT GUNA
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   HARBO BAI W/O SHRI CHIRONJI,
6.
   AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/O
   VILL.    BANDIPUR     TEHASIL
   LATERI    DISTRICT     VIDISHA
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   DHAN SINGH S/O SHRI GUMNA,
7.
   AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O
   VILL. KHILLI TEHASIL SIRONJ,
   DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
   MULLA S/O SHRI GUMNA, AGED
8.
   ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O VILL.
   BANDIPUR TEHASIL LATERI
   DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
9. BHAGCHAND S/O SHRI MANGAL
   SINGH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
   R/O VILL. BANDIPUR THASIL
   LATERI               DISTRICT
                                      3           S.A.NO.997/2023


   VIDISHA(MADHYA PRADESH)
   STATE   OF  M.P.  THROUGH
10
   COLLECTOR DISTRICT VIDISHA
.
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIJAY SUNDARAM - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO.10)
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:

                            JUDGMENT

Present second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 6.02.2023 passed by Learned District Judge, Lateri, District Vidisha (M.P.) in Civil Appeal No.29- A/2018 affirming the judgment and decree dated 26.7.2018 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Lateri, District Vidisha in Civil Suit No.28-A/2013 by which the suit of appellants/plaintiffs was dismissed.

2. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs before this Court is that land bearing Survey No.25, area 7.323 hectre (earlier survey No.21/1 area 59 bigha 7 biswa) is situated in village Bandipur Tahsil Lateri, Distt. Vidisha, out of which 14 bigha was leased out in favour of his ancestor Halku S/o Punna Chamar R/o Village Bandipur, Tehsil Lateri on 24.1.1963. During the life time of Halku, he was in possession of aforesaid land. After death of Halku, appellants being his legal heirs are in possession of above land. Due to negligence & inadvertence of the revenue personnel, that land was not mutated in the name of Halku in revenue records. Since lease (patta) in favour of Halku was not entered in the revenue records; therefore, 1.265 hectre of the land out of survey No.25 area 7.323 hectre was settled on 16.5.1980 vide Case No.34/A 19(4)/78-79 in favour of

Chironji. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that on 18.5.1989 vide case No.8/A19/82-83 apart from other persons, land out of Survey No.25/4, area 0.506 hectre was given to respondent No.6- Dhan Singh and same area out of that Khasra No.25/4 was given to respondent No.7 Mulla and Survey No.25/2 area 1.770 hectre was given in fovour of respondent No.1 Kasiya. Subsequent allotment was made due to non-compliance of patta given in favour of Halku; thus the patta given to respondents is illegal. Out of 14 Bigha of land which was allotted to Halku, 10 bigha land till date is in possession of the appellants and rest 4 bigha land has been allotted to the above persons. Appellants are the legal heirs of Halku as a lease holder; therefore, respondents are not entitled to get possession of the land which is allotted to them. When the fact of allotment of their land in favour of the above respondents came in their knowledge, they filed an application before Tehsildar, Lateri for entering the name of Halku on the disputed land and the allotment of land made in favour of respondents be declared as illegal, but in Case No.15/A 6A/1989-90 Tehsildar refused to give relief as prayed for by the appellants; therefore, the appellants filed the suit before the Civil Court.

3. Civil Court framing various issues on the basis of pleadings of the parities and appreciating the evidence on record, though gave a finding that Patta in regard to 14 bigha of land of survey No.21/1 present survey No.25/1 area 59 bigha a was given in favour of Halku S/o Punna in case No.4/162/63 dated 24.1.1963, but dismissed the suit finding that suit filed by the appellants is barred by limitation and also they are not entitled to get their name mutated in the revenue record on the disputed land.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court, the appellants had filed first appeal under Section 96 of the C.P.C. before the District Judge, Lateri, District Vidisha which was registered as Civil Appeal No.29-A/2018 and the same was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 6.2.2023 affirming the dismissal of the suit filed before the trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence in right perspective. When it has been found proved that the disputed land was given on Patta to their ancestor Halku, then for the sheer fault of revenue authorities they could not be punished and the subsequent allotment in favour of respondents is null and void. It has also been submitted that the finding of learned Appellate Court in paras-21, 22 and 23 of the impugned judgment is perverse. Learned counsel for the appellants have relied upon the judgments para-10 and 11 of of the Apex Court in the case of Rohini Prasad and others vs. Kasturchand and other (2000) 3 SCC 668, in the case of Hukam Singh (dead) by Lrs. And others vs. State of M.P. (2005) 10 SCC 124. He also relied on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shivnarayan Vs. State 1960 JLJ 1015 and in the case of Vedvrat Sharma and others Vs. State of M.P. and others 2020 (4) M.P.L.J 420 to bolster his submission that entry in the revenue record is not the document of title and the revenue authorities cannot decide the question of title. He further submits that the finding regarding the suit barred by limitation is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. The trial Court and learned Appellate Court have misdirected

themselves in appreciating the evidence and returned perverse findings which resulted in dismissal of the suit and appeal. This appeal involves substantial question of law; therefore, be admitted for substantial question of law as proposed by the appellants in their appeal memo.

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant at length.

7. It is well settled that second appeal before the High Court is permissible only when misreading of evidence by the appellate Court would lead to miscarriage or its findings are based on no evidence and thus perverse, as held in the case of Rohini Prasad (supra). As per plaintiff's own case land Survey No.25 earlier Survey 21/1 has total area of 59 bigha 7 biswa out of which only 14 bigha of land was given on patta to their predecessor Halku but there is no documentary evidence on record regarding four corners of the land given on patta as discussed by the Courts below, hence, it cannot be ascertained that the land area 4 bigha for which patta was given to the respondents is out of the same land which was allotted to Halku, therefore, claim of the appellants on this land has not been accepted by the Courts below. This finding is also based on the evidence adduced and therefore, cannot be said to be perverse.

8. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vedvrat Sharma (supra) in para 10 has held as under :-

"10. Further, undoubtedly by the impugned order, respondent/State has attempted to gain title of the land in question on the basis of so called entry in Khasra/Khatauni records of Samvat 2007. However, it is well settled that an entry in the

revenue records is not a document of title. Revenue Authorities cannot decide a question of title (Faqruddin (Dead) through LRs. v. Tajuddin (Dead) through LRs. [(2008) 8 SCC 12], referred to) . In this regard, the Apex Court in the case of Suraj Bhan Vs. Financal Commr. ((2007)6 SCC

186) has held as under:

"It is well settled that an entry in Revenue Records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in Record of Rights. It is settled law that entries in the Revenue Records or Jamabandi have only 'fiscal purpose' i.e. payment of land- revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent Civil Court (vide Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh and Ors., AIR 1994 SC 1653)"

(Emphasis supplied)

9. In Hakum Singh's (supra) case wherein it has been held that the claim as to Bhumiswami rights over the land in question as against State can be decided by the Civil Court having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon. It is not in dispute that the entries in the revenue record do not confer any right or title of the agricultural land. Here in the present case appellants have challenged the pattas given to the respondents for about 4 bigha of land. This clearly indicates that even though the appellants have sought relief in the form of declaration of their Bhoomiswami rights over the land allotted to the respondents but in fact they are challenging the pattas given long back in the year 1989 in favour of respondents which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of revenue authorities under Section 257 of the M.P.L.R.C. Act. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the Courts

below have not committed any error in referring the provisions of Section 257 of the MPLRC in dismissing the suit and regular civil appeal as an additional ground. Even if provisions of Section 257 of the M.P.L.R.C. Act are not resorted to, even then suit filed by the appellants being barred by limitation will not result in their favour.

10. It is not in dispute that patta relating to disputed land Survey No.25/1 area 14 bigha situated at Bandipur, Tehsil Lateri was given to the predecessor of the appellants Halku on 24.1.1963, but neither Halku nor the appellants made any attempt to record the said fact in revenue papers and afterwards some of the above area of aforesaid survey number near about 4 bigha was allotted to the respondents and they are in possession. As per the appellants on getting knowledge of the above fact they filed an application before Tehsildar, Lateri, but they have not disclosed on which date, moth or year they got that information. Plaintiff- Bharosa in cross- examination para-18 has stated that respondents are in possession of the above 4 bigha of land from last 10 to 12 years. He has further stated in para-19 that respondents have taken possession from the government. Ex.P/21 reveals that vide order dated 18.5.1989 in case no.8/A-19/82-83 the respondents were given patta of the above land. Admittedly, the suit has been filed in year 2013 which is apparently barred by law as held by the learned Courts below. 4 bigha of land allotted to respondents has ever been in the possession of the appellants or their predecessor Halku has not been proved. After this 4 bigha of land was given to different respondents on patta on 18.5.1989. After filing of the suit in near 2013 no action appears to have been taken by the appellants which clearly proves

that their suit for relief of declaration as well as for the possession is barred by limitation. In this regard, the concurrent finding has been returned by the Courts below which is based on due appreciation and cannot be interfered with in the second appeal.

11. In factual matrix, as revealed on perusal of the record, the judgments cited by the appellants during the course of arguments, do not help them in proving that findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse.

12. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the concurrent finds recorded by the Courts below cannot be said to be perverse and thus needs no interference, hence, this appeal stands dismissed.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE

Ahmad

MOHD

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, 2.5.4.20=76cd720db57b34b7642c70ed7eaf9b624f80d89cea07

AHMAD 317bb14d87e882cf0d0f, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=F3F56CD397D8CD6A76865A062F285CC6010CB 90C4A13B78A9AEC4BA8C65B56BA, cn=MOHD AHMAD Date: 2024.02.09 17:01:32 +05'30'