Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kishan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8457
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
MISC. PETITION No. 837 of 2025
KISHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Onkar Singh Sisodiya (through video conferencing), learned
counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Kushagra Jain, learned Govt. Adocate for the espondents
/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Reserved on 06.03.2025)
(Pronounced on 01.04.2025)
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred by the plaintiff/petitioner being aggrieved by the orders
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8457
passed by the Courts below whereby his application for issuance of
temporary injunction has been rejected.
2. As per the plaintiff, he has been in possession of the suit land
bearing survey No.720 area 0.400 hectare since the time of his father
Kalu. His grandfather was also in such possession. Their possession has
never been obstructed by the defendants. Plaintiff has constructed a
house over the suit land and is residing therein. The same has always
been to the knowledge of everyone. The defendants have never
instituted any proceedings before the Civil Court for dispossession of
the plaintiff. The plaintiff has hence acquired title to the suit land by
virtue of adverse possession.
3. On such contentions the plaintiff has instituted an action for
declaration of his title to the suit land by virtue of adverse possession
and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering
with his possession over the same.
4. Along with the plaint the plaintiff also filed an application under
Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC for issuance of temporary injunction
restraining the defendants from forcibly dispossessing him from the suit
land during pendency of the suit. The application was contested by the
defendants by filing their reply stating that plaintiff is an encroacher
over the suit land and has not acquired title thereto by virtue of adverse
possession. Proceedings have been taken against him from time to time
and fines have been imposed upon him, hence his possession cannot be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8457
said to be settled. He is not entitled for issuance of any temporary
injunction.
5. The Courts below have rejected plaintiff's application for
issuance of temporary injunction holding that his possession over the
suit land is by way of encroachment. Fines have been imposed upon
him from time to time and proceedings have been taken for his
dispossession. He had himself assured in the proceedings that he would
vacate the suit land but has not done so. Possession of an encroacher
cannot be protected.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that plaintiff is in
peaceful possession of the suit land since the time of his ancestors. His
possession is not sporadic or intermittent. Though proceedings have
been instituted against him for his dispossession but he has not actually
been dispossessed. His possession being settled possession deserves to
be protected during pendency of the suit. Plaintiff has been paying the
land revenue for the suit land and the other taxes also. If during
pendency of the suit he is dispossessed the entire purpose of filing of
the suit would be frustrated.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for defendants has supported the
impugned orders and has submitted that no illegality has been
committed by the Courts below in rejecting plaintiff's application hence
the petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8457
parties and have perused the record.
9. From the documents which are available on record it is evident
that possession of the plaintiff has not been settled inasmuch as the
same has been objected to by defendants from time to time.
Proceedings have been initiated against the plaintiff for his
dispossession from the suit land by terming him to be an encroacher.
Fines have also been imposed upon him from time to time. In the
proceedings the plaintiff had at one point of time assured that he would
deliver possession of the suit land but has not done so. The documents
demonstrate that it is the State Government which has been recorded
over the suit land as owner in the revenue records. The same is charnoi
land. The khasra Panchshala and other revenue documents produced by
plaintiff are on and from 2004 upto the date of filing of the suit.
However, for claiming adverse possession against the State Government
the period of possession has to be 30 years which has not been shown in
the present matter. The same at maximum can be taken to be only of 20
years.
10. In proceedings against plaintiff fines have been imposed upon
him. His possession has not been accepted by the defendants. In
response to a notice under Section 243 of the Cr.P.C. plaintiff had
admitted himself to be an encroacher and had stated that he would
remove the same. Moreover in the plaint there is no specific plea by
plaintiff as to from which date his possession became adverse to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8457
defendants which is a pre-requisite for calculation of the period for
adverse possession. The possession of plaintiff has been repeatedly
interrupted by the defendants. Possession of plaintiff hence cannot be
said to be settled possession. In such circumstances, the judgments
relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff to contend that
plaintiff's settled possession deserves to be protected during pendency
of the suit do not help him in any manner.
11. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, since the plaintiff is an
encroacher over government charnoi land and it is evident that
defendants are not illegally dispossessing him but have taken
proceedings for the same in accordance with law, in my opinion, the
Courts below have not committed any error in rejecting plaintiff's
application for issuance of temporary injunction. The impugned orders
are hence affirmed as a result of which the petition is dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
