Balkrishna Ojha vs Van Mandi Adhikari District Bhind
2024 Latest Caselaw 5783 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Balkrishna Ojha vs Van Mandi Adhikari District Bhind on 26 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 26 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                  SECOND APPEAL No. 1043 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
1.    BALKRISHNA OJHA S/O SHRI JAGANNATH OJHA,
      AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, BY CASTE OJHA (BADAI),
      OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILLAGE SOI,
      TEHSIL ATER , DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    RAMBABU OJHA S/O SHRI JAGANNATH OJHA,
      AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, BY CASTE OJHA (BADAI),
      OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILLAGE SOI,
      TEHSIL ATER , DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                                             .....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI J.S.KAURAV - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    VAN    MANDI    ADHIKARI DISTRICT           BHIND
      DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      COLLECTOR    DISTRICT  BHIND  (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                                           .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI NIRMAL SHARMA - GA )

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

This appeal under Section 100 of CPC is directed by plaintiffs/appellants against the concurring judgment and decree dated 30/1/2023 passed by Second District Judge, Bhind in Civil Appeal No.12/2022 confirming the

judgment and decree dated 23/3/2019 passed by Third Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhind in Civil Suit No. 202/2019. The Suit filed by appellants/plaintiffs for permanent injunction and recovery of possession has been dismissed.

2 . Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that appellants/plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction and recovery of possession under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act by pleading that the land as mentioned in plaint is of their ownership and they are the possession holder over the land. They are doing agricultural activities over the land in question since long; however, in June 2014, respondents started doing wire-fencing over

their land without demarcation and therefore, they objected the same; however, of no avail and therefore, they moved an application for demarcation before the Superintendent, Land Records and Settlement on which demarcation report was submitted however, respondent did not removed wire fencing therefore, they filed civil suit.

3. Defendants filed written statement and denied all the plaint allegations. It is specifically stated that defendants not installed any wire fencing over the land belonging to plaintiffs and it is only installed over the forest land.

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, dismissed the suit.

5. O n appeal, the first appellate Court,while deciding the appeal framed a s many as 3 questions and answered each question exhaustively with due advertence to oral and documentary evidence on record. The first appellate court has found that plaintiffs failed to prove that lands belong to them and even if the documents submitted by plaintiffs are taken into consideration, they did

not show any right of plaintiffs over the land in question. Further plaintiffs failed to prove that in June 2014 defendant No. 1 encroached upon their land and on the other hand defendants succeeded to prove that the wire fencing was installed in year 2011 for security of the land as per MP Gazette dated 20June1985 to which there is no rebuttal by the plaintiffs. Thus, first appellate Court after re appreciation of evidence, upheld the judgment of trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

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. Admission declined. Appeal is 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=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec865c76 33f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a, postalCode=474001,

SOLANKI st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B8072A2D 8C01433EBD48AE4F609F108CA8F8DE6B522, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 2024.03.04 10:30:32 +05'30'