Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramprakash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 March, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5666
1 SA-172-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 10th OF MARCH, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 172 of 2025
RAMPRAKASH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for appellant.
Mr. S.S. Kushwaha - Govt. Advocate for State.
JUDGMENT
This second appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. has been filed against
the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2024 passed by First District Judge,
Sironj, District Vidisha in RCA No.12/2024 arising out of judgment and
decree dated 27.5.2024 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sironj,
District Vidisha in RCSA No.21/2024 by which suit filed by appellant for
declaration of his title and permanent injunction has been dismissed.
2. It is the case of petitioner that tree plant permission/tree patta was
granted to him by Naib Tehsildar by order dated 18.9.1989 in Revenue Case
No.3A61/1988-89 under Section 239 of M.P.L.R. Code and accordingly,
petitioner has planted 80 trees. It is the case of petitioner that from the date of
tree plantation permission, he is in possession of the land in dispute and his
name is also recorded in revenue records. However, Naib Tehsildar by order
dated 03.6.1993 passed in Case No.140/B-121/1992-93 cancelled tree
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5666
2 SA-172-2025
plantation permission without issuing any notice and without giving any
opportunity of hearing. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner
preferred an appeal before S.D.O., Sironj which was registered as Appeal
No. 2/Appeal/2001-02 and by order dated 27.10.2001, order passed by Naib
Tehsildar on 03.6.1993 was set aside. Thereafter, petitioner filed an
application before the Court of Naib Tehsildar to comply the order dated
25.5.2022 passed by Additional Commissioner, Bhopal in appeal
No.122/Appeal/2019-20 but by order dated 03.1.2023, matter was forwarded
to S.D.O. and by order dated 31.8.2023, S.D.O., Sironj in Case No.
5B121/2023-24 rejected the said application. Accordingly, it was prayed that
appellant had never violated the conditions of tree plantation permission and
now respondents/defendants are cutting the trees which is detrimental to the
ecological balance of the area. It was pleaded that for construction of
community health centre, other government land is available in Village -
Piparia Haat but with an intention to cause financial loss to the appellant,
permission was granted to construct the community health centre whereas
petitioner is residing in a house constructed over the said property and
construction was done prior to several years. Accordingly, suit was filed that
petitioner may be declared the lease holder of Khasra No.218 area 0.670
hectare and the defendants should not interfere with the peaceful possession
of the appellant and they should not carry out any construction.
3. It appears that defendants were proceeded ex-parte and they did not
file any written statement. Trial Court directed the plaintiff to prove his case.
After recording the evidence of appellant, trial Court dismissed the suit by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5666
3 SA-172-2025
judgment and decree dated 27.5.2024 passed in Civil Suit RCSA
No.21/2024. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, appellant
preferred an appeal which too was dismissed by judgment and decree dated
06.11.2024 passed by First District Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha in RCA
No.12/2024.
4. Challenging the judgments and decree passed by Courts below, it is
submitted by counsel for appellant that both the Courts below failed to see
that tree plantation permission/tree patta was never cancelled and the order of
Naib Tehsildar by which tree plantation permission was cancelled was
ultimately set aside and the order dated 27.10.2001 passed by S.D.O., Sironj,
District Vidisha in Appeal No.2/Appeal/2001-02 has attained finality. Once
appellant is entitled to maintain his possession by virtue of tree plantation
permission, then respondents cannot encroach upon the said land and cannot
construct community health centre or any other infrastructure and
accordingly proposed the following substantial question of law.
5. Heard learned counsel for appellant.
6. Moot question for consideration is as to whether tree plantation
permission/tree patta granted by Naib Tehsildar by his order dated 18.9.1989
can be said to be a valid order or not.
7. It appears that multiple litigations took place but appellant had filed
the plaint in a most vague manner and did not refer to various orders which
were passed by different authorities in the meanwhile. Appellant was granted
tree plantation permission by order dated 18.9.1989. Said tree plantation
permission was cancelled by Naib Tehsildar, Sironj by order dated 03.6.1993
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5666
4 SA-172-2025
passed in Case No.140/B-121/1992-93. Against the said order, appellant
preferred an appeal before S.D.O., Sironj who dismissed the appeal by order
dated 12.8.1994 passed in Case No. 8/1993-94/Appeal. Thereafter, second
appeal filed by appellant before Additional Commissioner was dismissed by
order dated 28.4.1998. Being aggrieved by the said order, appellant preferred
revision before Board of Revenue which was allowed by order dated
29.11.1999 passed in Revision No.1394-3/1998 and the matter was
remanded back to the S.D.O. to decide the appeal afresh. It appears that only
thereafter, S.D.O. by passing a cryptic order dated 27.10.2001 set aside the
order dated 03.6.1993 passed by Naib Tehsildar.
8. Be that whatever it may.
9. It appears that said order was never challenged. Thereafter,
petitioner filed an application for re-mutation of his name on the basis of
order passed by S.D.O. That application was dismissed in default. Again an
appeal was filed which was dismissed by S.D.O. by order dated 10.4.2019
passed in Case No.117/Appeal/2017-18. Against the said order, appellant
preferred an appeal before Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal and by
order dated 25.5.2022, appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded
back to decide the application in the light of order passed by the Board of
Revenue. Ultimately, by order dated 31.8.2023, application filed by
appellant for re-mutation of his name was rejected.
10. It is true that order dated 27.10.2001 passed by S.D.O., Sironj,
District Vidisha by which he had set aside the order dated 03.6.1993 passed
by Naib Tehsildar, Sironj, District Vidisha has attained finality but now the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5666
5 SA-172-2025
only question for consideration is as to whether the order dated 18.9.1989
passed by Naib Tehsildar, Sironj by which tree plantation permission was
given can be said to be a valid order or it is a nullity.
11. Section 239 of M.P.L.R. Code reads as under :-
"[Rights in fruit bearing trees and other trees planted in
unoccupied land.-- (1) Where, before coming into force of this
Code any fruit bearing tree was planted by any person in the
unoccupied land of any village, and is so recorded, then
notwithstanding that such land vests in the State Government,
such person, and his successor-in-interest shall from generation to
generation be entitled to possession and usufruct of such trees
without payment of any royalty or other charge whatsoever
therefor.
[(2) The State Government or any Revenue Officer not below the
rank of Tahsildar as may be authorised by the State Government
in this behalf, may permit any person or persons to plant and grow
fruit bearing or other species of trees as may be specified in this
behalf on unoccupied land of a village that may be earmarked for
the purpose and grant tree planting permit and tree pattas to such
person or persons in accordance with the provisions of this section
and the rules made thereunder.
(3) The tree planting permit and the tree patta granted under this
section shall be, in such form and subject to such terms and
conditions as may be prescribed.
(4) The right conferred under this section shall be transferable but
permit or patta holder or his successor-in-interest shall have no
right to the land on which such tree stands except the right to grow
trees on such land and enjoy the usufructuary rights on such trees
including the right in corpus of the tree subject to the terms and
conditions of the permit and patta Provided that no transfer by sale
or by lease shall be made except with the previous permission in
writing of the officer authorised by the State Government under
sub-section (2).
(5) if any of the terms and conditions of tree planting permit or
tree patta are breached, the permit or patta shall be liable to be
cancelled after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard
to the holder thereof.
(6) the State Government may make rules for carrying out the
purposes of this section.] "
12. Sub-sections 2, 3 and 4 of Section 239 of M.P.L.R. Code were
deleted by M.P. Land Revenue Code (Amendment Act 2018). Therefore,
after the amendment of 2018, authorities of the State Government or any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5666
6 SA-172-2025
Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tehsildar to grant tree plantation
permission/tree patta has been withdrawn. However, in the present case, tree
plantation permission/tree patta was granted in the year 1989. It is clear from
Sub-section 3 of Section 239 of M.P.L.R. Code that the permission shall be
in such form and subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed.
13. Exhibit P/1 reads as under :-
" यायालय नायव तहसीलदार म डल िसरोज
० ० 3/A.61/88.89 दनांक 18/9/89
अनु ा-प
: म० ०भू०रा०सं० १६५६ को घारा २३६ के अ तगत :
-----------------------------------------
आवेदक राम काश पु ी लालाराम िनवासी पपिलयाहाट क भूिम सव माक
2/8 रकवा 0.640 है ० दा खल र हत पर िन न शत के अधीन अ थायी प से
अनु ाप जार क जाती है :-
२३६:३::-
------
:१: पोधे जो रो पत कये जायगे, पशुओं ारा हािनसे रो ने हे तु बागड़ से सुर त होगी।
:२: वृ के बीच क दरू य द वे न दयाँ , नालो, अथवा तालाबो के कनारे अथवा सडक
क बगल के साथ साथ एक पं मे रो पत कये जाएँ , १२ मीटर से कम न होगी।
:३: य द रोपण कुंज का प लेने वाला हो, तो रो पत कयेजाने बाले वृ क सं या
ित एकड़ ३० से अिधक न होगी, तथा वृ के बीच कमसे कम १२ मीटर क दरू छोड
जायेगी तथा
:४: उस भूिम को जसपर, रोपण को अनु ा द गई है । बागड न न क जायेगी, अथवा
घेरा न जायेगा। तथा पशुओं समेत भूिमपर अबाध वेश क अनु ा द जायेगी।
नायव तहसीलदार
िसरोज (म० ०)"
Therefore, it is clear that even by this tree plantation permission,
appellant was not given any athority to construct any house for his residential
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5666
7 SA-172-2025
purposes and the entire land was open for everybody including animals.
14. Now the only question for consideration is as to whether appellant
had violated the terms and conditions of the aforesaid tree plantation
permission/tree patta or not.
15. Paragraph 9 of the plaint reads as under :-
"9- यह क वा थ के बनाने हे तु अ य शासक य भूिम ाम पपिलया हाट
म पड हुई है पर तु वाद को नुकसान पहुच
ं ाने हे तु वा दत भूिम म िनमाण वीकृ ित द
गई ह वा दत भूिम म वाद कई वष से प का मकान बना है । जसम वह प रवार स हत
िनवास कर रहा है ।"
Thus, it is clear that appellant after grant of tree plantation permission
has constructed a house and is residing along with his family members.
16. This Court has already reproduced tree plantation permission
according to which no permission was granted to the appellant to construct
any house. On the contrary, entire land was to be used only for plantation of
trees and it was open for access for people as well as for animals. Thus, in
view of the admission made by appellant in paragraph 9 of the plaint, it is
clear that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of tree plantation
permission.
17. Under these circumstances. this Court is of the considered opinion
that an unreasoned order dated 27.10.2001 Exhibit P/3 passed by S.D.O.,
Sironj, District Vidisha cannot be held to be good specifically in view of the
admission made by appellant himself in the plaint.
18. Once the violation of condition of tree plantation permission has
been voluntarily admitted by appellant in paragraph 9 of his plaint, therefore,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5666
8 SA-172-2025
it is clear that the authorities below did not commit any mistake by refusing
to mutate the name of appellant in the revenue record.
19. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law
arises in the present appeal.
20. Ex-consequentia, judgments and decree dated 06.11.2024 and
27.5.2024 are hereby affirmed.
21. Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AKS
