Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Premlata Shrivastava vs State Of M.P.& Ors. on 13 March, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6711
1 SA. No. 464 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 13th OF MARCH, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 464 of 2004
SMT. PREMLATA SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
STATE OF M.P.& ORS.
Appearance:
Shri Sameer Kumar Jain - Advocate for appellant.
Shri G.K. Agarwal- Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2/State.
Shri Shyam Prakash Jain- Advocate for respondent No.3.
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
has been filed against judgment and decree dated 30.04.2004 passed by II
Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Sheopur (M.P.) in Regular Civil Appeal
No.19-A/2004 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2002 passed by
Civil Judge Class I, Sheopur (M.P.), in Civil Suit No.37A/2000.
2. The facts, necessary for disposal of the present appeal, in short, are that
plaintiff/appellant filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent
injunction. It was her case that on 0.31 hectare of land out of total 10 Bigha 05
Biswa of Survey No.1135/1, the house of plaintiff is situated along with a garden.
The disputed property was shown in red colour in the plaint map.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6711
It is the case of plaintiff that the house and garden is in existence from the
lifetime of her father and after the death of her father, plaintiff is in possession of
the disputed house and garden, being his legal representative. Earlier, her father
had filed a civil suit for declaration of his title and permanent injunction which
was registered as Civil Suit No.370A/84. By judgment and decree dated 11.05.87,
the civil suit was dismissed, however, father of plaintiff was found to be in
possession of the property in dispute from Samvat 2038. It is submitted that
thereafter the State of Madhya Pradesh allotted Survey No.1135/1 to Krishi Upaj
Mandi Samiti and now the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti has become the owner of
Survey No.1135/1. It is submitted that since possession of father of plaintiff was
found since Samvat 2038, therefore, plaintiff has acquired the title by way of
adverse possession. It was alleged that on 31.08.98 and 08.09.98, Tahsildar and
Revenue Inspector, Karahal, issued show-cause notices for eviction and twice
they made an attempt to remove the house as well as garden. The aforesaid action
of the authorities is illegal and contrary to the interest of the plaintiff and thus the
suit was filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the disputed house
and garden as well as for permanent injunction that the defendants be restrained
from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff.
3. Defendants filed their written statement and denied that father of plaintiff is
in possession of land in dispute since Samvat 2038, however, it was alleged that
father of plaintiff had encroached upon the land for a period of one year and
accordingly, plaintiff did not acquire any title by way of adverse possession. For
the time being, the construction work of the Mandi committee is going on and the
suit filed by the father of the plaintiff was already dismissed.
4. The Trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence dismissed the
suit filed by appellant.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6711
appellant preferred an appeal which too has been dismissed by the impugned
judgment and decree.
6. By order dated 16.02.2012, the appeal was admitted on following
substantial questions of law:-
"(1) Whether in view of the fact that the suit land has been
transferred by the State Government to the Mandi Committee, the
learned Courts below are justified in holding that the Plaintiff was
required to prove her possession for over 30 years for perfecting the
rights by adverse possession?
(2) Whether for perfecting the rights by adverse possession over the
property which does not belong to the State Govt. possession for over
12 years would suffice and not 30 years?
(3) Whether in view of the fact that the possession of the
predecessor of the Plaintiff has been found since Samvat 2038 and
there is no evidence in record that either the predecessor of the
Plaintiff or the Plaintiff herself has ever been dispossessed from the
suit premises, the learned Courts below are justified in dismissing the
suit of the Plaintiff?"
7. The plaintiff has relied upon the judgment dated 11.05.1987 passed by Civil
Judge Class I, Sheopur (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.370A/84 which was instituted by
her father against the State of M.P. and Tahsildar. It was held by the Trial Court
that the plaintiff therein i.e. the father of plaintiff has encroached upon the land
and is in possession since Samvat 2038. If Samvat 2038 is converted into calendar
year, then it would come to the year 1981. The suit was filed by father of plaintiff
in the year 1984 which was dismissed in the year 1987. Therefore, it is clear that
father of plaintiff had not perfected his title against the State of Madhya Pradesh
as he was not found to be in possession of the property in dispute for the last
thirty years but he was found in possession from the year 1981 only. Therefore, it
is clear that the dispute was already going on between the parties and it cannot be
said that father of plaintiff was in open and hostile possession of the property in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6711
dispute. Undisputedly, the land was the government land and it was allotted by
the Government to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti.
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur
and others, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 729 has held as under:
"63. When we consider the law of adverse possession as has
developed vis-à-vis to property dedicated to public use, courts have
been loath to confer the right by adverse possession. There are
instances when such properties are encroached upon and then a plea
of adverse possession is raised. In such cases, on the land reserved
for public utility, it is desirable that rights should not accrue. The law
of adverse possession may cause harsh consequences, hence, we are
constrained to observe that it would be advisable that concerning
such properties dedicated to public cause, it is made clear in the
statute of limitation that no rights can accrue by adverse possession."
Thus, it is clear in the statute of limitation that no rights can accrue by
adverse possession in respect of the properties dedicated to public cause.
9. According to the plaintiff as well as defendants, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti
had started functioning from the year 1985. Whereas father of plaintiff filed Civil
Suit in the year 1984 which was decided in the year 1987. Krishi Upaj Mandi
Samiti was not made a party by father of plaintiff. Admittedly, even otherwise
father of plaintiff had not perfected his title by way of adverse possession against
Krishi Upaj Mandi also.
10. The land is being used for public utility purposes as Krishi Upaj Mandi has
been established on Survey No.1135/1 and plaintiff has admitted that the plot of
plaintiff is in the mid of the land. In order to go to her house and garden, she has
to go through the premises of Krishi Upaj Mandi and the house and garden is
situated within the boundaries/premises of Krishi Upaj Mandi and has also
admitted that within the boundary Tin-shed of Mandi, godowns etc. are situated
and the work of sale and purchase of crops has begun. It is clear that otherwise
also in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6711
Ravinder Kaur Grewal (supra) no right can be declared in favour of plaintiff on
the basis of adverse possession. Furthermore, the suit filed by plaintiff was barred
by principles of res judicata.
11. Accordingly, all the substantial questions of law are answered in negative.
As a consequence thereof, the judgment and decree passed by the courts below
are hereby affirmed.
12. Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
pd
