Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balwant Singh Jat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4842
1 SA-2459-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 2459 of 2024
BALWANT SINGH JAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri H.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Dilip Awasthi, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
Heard on admission.
This appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed being aggrieved
by the judgment dated 07.07.2023 passed by trial Court in RCS No.7A/2022
which has been upheld by the First Appellate Court in RCA No.33/2023 by
judgment and decree dated 03.09.2024.
Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that both the Courts
below have failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective. Suit was
filed for declaring the appellant/plaintiff as title holder on the land bearing
survey No.359 & 419 situated at Village Karahi, RI Circle Tekanpur Dabra,
Dist. Gwalior, but the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in
right perspective and dismissed the suit. Similarly, the matter when placed
before the Appellate Court, appellate Court also did not appreciate the
evidence documentary as well as oral. In the light of prevailing legal
position, upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, which is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4842
2 SA-2459-2024
bad-in-law. No evidence of OIC or any responsible officer has been led by
the respondent/State for rebuttal of the evidence led by the plaintiff Balwant
Singh (PW-1), witness Suraj Pal (PW-2) and witness Manish Tiwari (PW-3).
Learned counsel has also referred khasra (Ex.P/3 to Ex.P/9) which has been
filed to prove the possession of the appellant over the disputed property for a
considerable period to ripen the title on the disputed property by way of
adverse possession. Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to
paras 10 & 11 of the judgment passed by the trial Court to bolster his
submissions. In the aforesaid premises, learned counsel prays for admitting
this appeal on the proposed substantial questions of law mentioned in the
appeal memo.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record along
with the evidence referred.
It is undisputed that the disputed land belongs to the State. For proving
the title for government land by way of adverse possession, it is must that 30
years clear possession in knowledge of the government and holding it
adverse, denying the title of the government should be proved. For this, the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Annasaheb Bapusaheb
Patil and Others vs. Balwant and Balasaheb Babusaheb Patil and Others 1995
SCC (2) 543 and Karnataka Board of Waqf vs. Govt. of India & Ors. (2004)
10 SCC 779 may be referred. The relevant para-11 of Karnataka Board of
Waqf (supra) is reproduced as under:-
"In the eye of law, an owner would be deemed to be in
possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4842
3 SA-2459-2024
Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long
time won't affect his title. But the position will be
altered when another person takes possession of the
property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession
is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in
denial of the title of true owner. It is a well- settled
principle that a party claiming adverse possession must
prove that his possession is 'nec vi, nec clam, nec
precario', that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The
possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity
and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to
the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition
of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive,
hostile and continued over the statutory period. (See : S
M Karim v. Bibi Sakinal AIR 1964 SC 1254, Parsinni
v. Sukhi (1993) 4 SCC 375 and D N Venkatarayappa v.
State of Karnataka (1997) 7 SCC 567). Physical fact of
exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold
as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most
important factors that are to be accounted in cases of
this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure
question of law but a blended one of fact and law.
Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession
should show (a) on what date he came into possession,
(b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether
the factum of possession was known to the other party,
(d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his
possession was open and undisturbed. A person
pleading adverse possession has no equities in his
favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of true
owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all
facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. (Dr.
Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Raj Kumari Sharma (1996) 8
SCC)
In the light of the aforesaid when I scrutinize the evidence on record,
this Court finds that no illegality either factual or of law has been committed
by the Courts below in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. Both the Courts
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4842
4 SA-2459-2024
have recorded concurrent findings of facts which are not shown to be
perverse or contrary to the record. This Court is not obliged to re-appreciate
or reconsider the evidence in second appeal and no substantial questions of
law is found involved, therefore, there is no justification in disturbing the
concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below.
This appeal has no merit, fails and is hereby dismissed on admission.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Adnan/Soumya
