Ramshiromani Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 14078 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ramshiromani Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 May, 2024

Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

                                                        1
                             IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                               ON THE 14 th OF MAY, 2024
                                            SECOND APPEAL No. 1846 of 2023

                            BETWEEN:-
                            1.    RAMSHIROMANI SHUKLA S/O LATE SHRI
                                  RAMAWTAR SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
                                  OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE
                                  BARWAH TEHSIL HUZUR POLICE STATION
                                  CHOURHATA   DISTRICT  REWA   (MADHYA
                                  PRADESH)

                            2.    RAMAKANT SHUKLA S/O LATE SHRI RAMAVTAR
                                  SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                  AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE BARWAH TEHSIL
                                  HUZUR    P.S.  CHORAHTA DISTRICT REWA
                                  (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                               .....APPELLANTS
                            (BY SHRI SATYENDRA PRASAD DUBEY, ADVOCATE)

                            AND
                            1.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                  COLLECTOR REWA DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
                                  PRADESH)

                            2.    RAMLAL S/O BALDEI KOL, AGED ABOUT 50
                                  YEAR S, OCCUPATION: LABOURE R/O VILLAGE
                                  BARWAH TEHSIL HUZUR P.S. CHORHATA
                                  DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                            3.    AKHILESH S/O RAMSIAPHI KOL, AGED ABOUT 28
                                  YEAR S , OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE
                                  BARWAH TEHSIL HUZUR P.S. CHORAHTA
                                  DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                            4.    MADHAV S/O RAMSIPAHI KOL, AGED ABOUT 32
                                  YEAR S , OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE
                                  BARWAH TEHSIL HUZUR P.S. CHORAHATA
                                  DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 5/15/2024
12:27:14 PM
                                                         2
                            (BY MS. KAMLESH TAMRAKAR, PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT-
                            STATE)

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

This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs/appellants challenging the judgment & decree dtd. 14.07.2023 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Rewa in RCA no.18/2018 affirming the judgment & decree dtd. 23.12.2017 passed by 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, Rewa in Civil Suit No.73A/2015 whereby courts below have dismissed the plaintiffs/appellants' suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the land in question bearing survey nos. 117 area 0.41 acre [(out of 0.62 acre) old no. 215]; 196/2 area 0.67 acre [(out of 0.82 acre) old no. 335]; 291 area 0.55 acre (old no.

339); 301 area 0.49 acre (old no. 360) and 440 area 1.56 acre (old no. 524) situated in Village-Barwah belonged to forefathers of the plaintiffs and their names are recorded in the revenue papers as bhoomiswami. Learned counsel submits that since prior to coming into force of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short 'the Code'), the plaintiffs and their forefathers have been in possession. He submits that without taking into consideration the continuous khasra entries (Ex. P/1 to Ex.P/13) showing title of the appellants, courts below have dismissed the suit. Learned counsel submits that judgment & decree passed by courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law. With these submissions, he prays for admission of the second appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment & decree passed by courts below and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

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

5. Courts below upon due consideration of the material available on record have held that the plaintiffs have not been able to prove that the disputed lands were received by their father Ramavatar and have also failed to prove ownership of forefathers namely Narmada Prasad and his brothers Jamuna Prasad, Jagannath Prasad and Ganga Prasad. At the same time, after coming into force of the Code, the land was recorded in the name of State Government. Perusal of the record shows that although the plaintiffs and their ancestors' possession is recorded in the remark column, but the same does not confer any right on the plaintiffs.

6. On the basis of long possession, plaintiffs have also taken plea of adverse possession which has rightly been negatived by courts below.

7. In view of the aforesaid and in view of the concurrent findings recorded by courts below in respect of title and possession, this court does not find any illegality in the judgment & decree passed by the courts below.

8. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, this second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

9. Miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall stand disposed off.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE KPS