Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shankar Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4039
1 SA-16-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 14th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 16 of 2020
SHANKAR LAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prasanna R. Bhatnagar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Yashpal Ahluwalia - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This second appeal u/S 100 of Code of Civil Procedure is preferred
being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2019 in Regular
Civil Appeal No. 08/2019 passed by the Second Additional District Judge,
Distt. Agar arising out of the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2019 in
Regular Civil Suit No. 74-A/2018 passed by Civil Judge Class II, Distt.
Agar.
2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration and
permanent injunction regarding Survey No. 185/2 Area 0.60 Hectare situated
at Village Mudpura, Tehsil Barod, Distt. Agar. on the ground that prior to
settlement operation, agricultural land of Survey No. 55 area 1.10 Hectare
was in the bhoomisuwami rights of his Great Grand Father. His Great Grand
Father got the land from the then Jagirdar Kanungo Thakur Amar Singh
through lease. This survey number 55 was re-numbered as Survey No. 185/1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4039
2 SA-16-2020
area 0.50 Hectare and Survey No. 185/2 area 0.60 Hectare. Both the survey
numbers were in the cultivation of appellant and his forefather. This land was
never used as a burial ground, but during operation of settlement Survey No.
185/1 Area 0.50 Hectare was recorded in the name of appellant/plaintiff and
Survey No. 185/2 was recorded as Government land. When
appellant/plaintiff came to know the fact on notice by Patwari, then he filed
a representation for correction of the revenue entries, but his representation
for correction of revenue entries was dismissed on 23.05.2018 by the
Collector, Distt. Agar.The appellant/plaintiff filed a civil suit on 01.10.2018
and no written statement was filed by the defendant/respondent.
3. The trial Court framed issues and recorded the evidence of
appellant - Shankarlal as PW-1 and Mangilal as PW-2 and admitted the
documents from Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-12.
4. Appreciating the evidence, the trial Courtdismissed the suit.
Appeal was preferred and the same was also dismissed. This second appeal is
preferred proposing the following substantial questions of law:
"(i) Whether, the learned Courts below was justified in
dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.?
(ii) Whether the appellant/plaintiff acquired bhumiswami
right in light of the provisions of Section 185 of M.P. Land
Revenue Code?
(iii) Any other substantial question of law, which the
Hon'ble Court deems fit may kindly be framed.."
5. Exhibit P-6 is the re-numbering slip and according to Exhibit P-6,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4039
3 SA-16-2020
the previous Survey No. 185/1 was 55 Tukda and the previous Survey No.
185/2 was also 55 Tukda. Exhibit P-7 is the khasra Panchshala from 1996-97
to 2000-01 and the name of appellant/plaintiff or his forefather is not
recorded as bhumiswami on Survey No. 55. This land was recorded as
nistar-gochar. Exhibit P-10 is the khasra for the year 2007-08 to 2010 and the
land of Survey No. 185/2 , area 0.60 hectare is also not recorded in the
bhumiswami rights of the appellant. His name is recorded as tress-passer.
Exhibit P-12 is the khasra of 2015-16 and agricultural land of Survey No.
185/2 is recorded as Government land. In Exhibit P-5 also, the land of
Survey No. 185/2 is not in the bhoomiswami rights of the appellant/plaintiff.
His name is recorded as tress-passer. Exhibit P-1 also does not mention that
the land of Survey no. 55 was allotted to his forefather on lease. The order
dated 23. 05.2018 (Exhibit P-9) mentions that the land of Survey No. 185/1
was settled with the appellant's name, but that does not give enforceable
rights to claim the settlement of Survey No. 185/2 also.
6. The trial Court and the first appellate Court did not commit any
factual or legal mistake to be interfered by this Court in the present second
appeal. Hence, no substantial questions of law arises for consideration in
this appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
sh
