Madhya Pradesh High Court
Union Of India vs Smt. Kalpana Kanojia on 12 March, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12443
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2025
FIRST APPEAL No. 116 of 2012
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. KALPANA KANOJIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Jain - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Naveen Vaswani - Advocate for the respondent.
JUDGMENT
This First Appeal is filed by the Union of India being aggrieved by the
judgment and decree dated 04.11.2021 passed in Civil Suit No. 2-B/2011
(Smt. Kalpana Kanojiya and others Vs. State of M.P. and others) whereby
the learned trial Court has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,94,400/- to the
plaintiff / respondent for the illegal dismantlement of the suit house on Nazul
Seat No. 5, plot No. 12, area 648 Sq. Ft. without due process of law.
2. It was admitted fact between the parties in the trial Court that husband
of plaintiff No.1 late Bhikhulal Kanojiya who is father of plaintiffs No. 2 and 3
had expired.
3. Before the trial Court it was submitted that original owner / possessor
of the suit property was Bhikhulal Kanojiya who had constructed the house
on the area as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the judgment and out of the
same plot he purchased open area of 324 Sq feet from Lalluam Kanojiya
vide sale-deed dated 21.03.1975.
4. It is submitted that on 648 Sq feet Bhikhulal constructed two storey
house. The State of Madhya Pradesh granted permanent lease for the suit
plot to Bhikhulal Kanojiya. After his death lease was extended in favour of
the plaintiff till the year 2025. The land is of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Without any notice on 13.02.2007 the suit house was demolished. At the
time of demolishment, articles of about Rs. 50,000/- were broken. The
plaintiffs gave notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. to the respondent.
5. The defendants, besides admitting fact, denied the suit that plaintiff
was owner of the suit area. His two storey constructed house on the suit land
was also denied. It was denied that he sustained any loss. It is submitted
that the plaintiff filed a suit No. 2-A/05 before the Court of Civil Judge,Class
II, Hoshangabad in which there was an order in favour of the defendant and
order dated 03.11.2005 and appeal was filed before the Additional District
Judge, Hoshangabad. In Appeal No. 14-A/06 vide judgment and decree
dated 5.9.2006, learned First Appellate Court also held that plaintiffs are
trespassers and are illegal possessors. Thereafter, on a notice to defendant
by plaintiffs, plaintiffs handed over the suit property to the defendant.
6. Learned trial Court framed the following issues and findings are
against them :-
" oknh iz'u fu"d"kZ
¼1½ D;k oknhx.k }kjk izfroknhx.k dks okn izLrqr djus ds iwoZ
/kkjk&80 flfoy izfd;k lafgrk ds varxZr fof/kor uksfVl nh
xbZ Fkh \
¼2½ D;k oknhx.k uxj gks'kaxkckn ds utwy lhV dza0 &5 d s
IykWV dz0&12 ds 640 oxZfQV Hkkx ,oa ml ij cus Hkou
ds Lokeh rFkk vkf/kiR;/kkjh gSa \
¼3½ D;k izfroknhx.k us fof/k fo:) rjhds ls mijksDRk fookfnr
IykWV ij cuk edku /kjk'kk;h dj fn;k \
¼4½ lgk;rk ,oa okn O;; \
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. This Court had earlier decided F.A. No. 316 of 2014 (General
Manager, West Central Railway Habibganj and others Vs. Rajeshwar Lal
Konojia ), FA No. 317 of 2014 (General Manager, West Central Railway,
Jabalpur and others Vs. Kishorilal Kanojia and F.A. No. 318 of 2014 (Union
of India and others Vs. Rahul Kanojia) vide common order dated 05.09.2023
in which for the same set of suit properties situated in Hoshangabad as
mentioned in the First Appeals, it has come to the notice of the Court that
Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.A. No. 1940 of 2006 [ Lalla Ji
(since deceased) through his legal representatives and others Vs. Union of
India and others] in which Smt. Kalpana Kanojiya wife of Shri Bhikhulal
Kanojiya was also a party as plaintiff, that Second Appeal was disposed of
by this Court vide order dated 18.09.2015 whereby as per paragraph 8 of the
judgment, matter was remanded back to the trial Court to decide the issue
again after appointing Local Commissioner to demarcate the land in dispute
in terms of Order 26, Rule 9 of C.P.C., after hearing the parties as per law,
therefore, on the basis of judgment dated 18.09.2015 passed in Second
Appeal No. 1940 of 2006, the appeal of the Union of India was dismissed as
notice Ex. D/2 in that case was passed on the basis of judgment dated
5.9.2006 passed in Appeal No. 114/06, which was set aside in Second
Appeal No. 1940 of 2006 . In the appeal, in hand i.e. F.A.No. 116 of 2012 it is
seen that Railway Department has again placed reliance on the same
judgment in their written statement in para 4 i.e. judgment of the First
Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in Appeal No. 14-A/06 - judgment
dated 5.9.2006, therefore, when that judgment was set aside and the case
was remanded in S.A. No. 1940 of 2006 [ Lalla Ji (since deceased) through
his legal representatives and others Vs. Union of India and others], that
judgment of Second Appeal would apply mutatis mutandis and no relief can
be granted to Union of India in this case also because the basis on which the
demolition drive was carried out was the order of the First Appellate Court,
which was set aside by the Second Appellate Court, therefore, no further
appreciation of evidence on issues No.1 to 4 is required and the appeal of
Union of India stands dismissed and order of the trial Court dated 4.11.2011
passed in Civil Suit No. 2-B/2011 (Smt. Kalpana Kanojiya and others Vs.
State of M.P. and others) is maintained.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
VSG
VIKRAM SINGH
2025.03.17 13:01:08 +05'30'
