Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shambhu Singh Tanay vs Uday Bahadur Singh Tanay on 8 January, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1 SA-1358-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
SA No. 1358 of 2024
(SHAMBHU SINGH TANAY Vs UDAY BAHADUR SINGH TANAY AND OTHERS )
Dated : 08-01-2025
Shri Sanjay Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri Arpit Agrawal -
Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Pramod Pandey - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
The matter was heard and reserved for orders on admission on
14/11/2024.
This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. Learned Trial Court
in Civil Suit No.55A/2016 (Shambhu Singh vs. Mahesh Singh & others) vide
judgment and decree dated 30/08/2019 for the suit property situated in
village Dadh, Tehsil Semaria District Rewa (MP) bearing Khasra No.70/1
area 0.30 acres out of total area of 1.78 acres for declaration of title and
permanent injunction has partly allowed. The trial Court has not decreed the
suit for declaration of title but decreed the suit with regard to permanent
injunction on the basis of possession and directed that they should not be
dispossessed without due process of law.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned
trial Court with regard to dismissal of the suit for declaration of title, the
plaintiff preferred an appeal No.50042/2019 before the Additional District
Judge, Sirmour, District Rewa which was dismissed vide judgment and
decree dated 08/05/2024 but regarding possession finding of the trial Court
has been affirmed.
2 SA-1358-2024
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the first appellate
Court has wrongly dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC
for amendment filed by the appellant/plaintiff. There was no counter claim of
any of the party. The settlement order dated 25/11/1988 was final therefore
binding on all the parties. It was also submitted that there was no provision
under the Act of 1970 for disclosure by government employee showing his
employment status for getting patta on application. In support of his
contention, he referred allotment order (Ex.P/1) and application of appellant
(Ex.D/1). This order has been challenged by Mahes Singh in Case
No.606/A-19/2006-2007 which was dismissed vide order dated 31/01/2008
by the Additional Collector Rewa. Being aggrieved by the order of
Additional Collector, the defendant has filed an appeal before the
Commissioner Rewa which was also dismissed vide order dated 30/06/2009.
The Revenue Board also upheld the order dated 30/06/2009 and maintained
the order of Additional Commissioner but did not set aside the order of
settlement.
After considering the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant
and on perusing the record, this appeal seems to be arguable and hence it is
admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law :-
"(i) Whether the unchallenged settlement order dated 25/11/1988
issued under the Act 1970 is final and finding on all the parties,
considering the absence of a specific provision for challenging
such order therein and the defendant's failure to file a counter
claim contesting its validity in the civil suit ?
(ii) Whether the Act 1970 mandates the disclosure of government
3 SA-1358-2024
employment status as a prerequisite for applying for settlement of
unoccupied land and the plaintiff's nondisclosure of such
information automatically invalidates their application or the
settlement order issued by the authorized revenue authority ?
(iii) Whether the lower appellate Court has committed legal error
in dismissing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC."
On payment of process fee within seven working days, issue notice to
the respondents.
In the meantime, parties are directed to maintain status quo as it exist
today regarding the suit property.
List the matter along with service report.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
mc
