Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kanhaiyalal Singh vs Surendra Singh on 25 June, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27371
1 FA-258-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 25th OF JUNE, 2025
FIRST APPEAL No. 258 of 2019
KANHAIYALAL SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
SURENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akhilesh K. Jain- Advocate for appellants.
Shri Sanjay Agrawal- Senior Advocate with Ms. Ankita Singh
Parihar- Advocate for LRs of respondent No.1.
Shri Amit Kumar Sharma- Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
Appellants have filed this appeal under Section 96 of CPC
challenging order dated 19.11.2018 passed by III Additional District
Judge, Rewa, District Rewa (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.1-A/2014.
2. Counsel appearing for appellants submitted that civil suit was
filed by them claiming 1/3rd title over the suit property and also 1/3rd
share in the compensation amount which has been awarded by
competent authority for acquisition of their land under the National
Highways Act, 1956. It is submitted that defendants/respondents had
filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC that civil suit filed by
appellants is barred under Section 3H of National Highways Act, 1956.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27371
2 FA-258-2019
It is submitted that suit was filed not only in respect of compensation
amount but also in respect of property which has not been acquired
under the National Highways Act, 1956, therefore, trial Court has
committed an error of law in allowing application under Order 7 Rule 11
and dismissing the entire suit. Order suffers from jurisdictional error and
therefore, interference is called for in this first appeal.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1
submitted that there is no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the
Trial Court. As per provision of Section 3H(4) if there is dispute of
apportionment of the amount or part thereof then competent authority
shall refer the matter to principal civil court of original jurisdiction for
judgment. It is submitted that appellants/plaintiffs has themselves filed
the suit. Appellants/plaintiffs ought to have approach the competent
authority for apportionment then competent authority would have
referred the matter for adjudication before principal civil court of
original jurisdiction. There cannot be a suit filed by plaintiffs directly
before the Court. Suit will be by way of reference and not otherwise,
therefore, no error has been committed by the Trial Court in allowing the
application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
4. Heard the counsel for parties.
5. On going through plaint which is placed on record it is found
that relief which has been prayed is also in respect of land which has not
been subject matter of acquisition. Therefore, there is no question that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27371
3 FA-258-2019
competent authority will refer said issue for adjudication. It has also
been argued that there is question of title in respect of other property in
which question of apportionment is not there, therefore, Trial Court has
committed an error in dismissing the entire suit filed by
appellants/plaintiffs. Relief of declaration of title has been prayed for by
the appellants along with apportionment of compensation of 1/3rd
amount, therefore, suit is not barred under provision of Section 3H(4) of
the National Highways Act, 1956. Impugned judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court is set aside. Matter is remanded back before the
Trial Court for adjudication on merits. Judgment and decree which will
be passed by the Trial Court will be sent before competent authority for
distribution of compensation in accordance therewith.
6. First appeal is disposed off.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
SS
