Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1131 (MP)

Banshi v. State of M. P.

2000-10-13

ARUN MISHRA

body2000
JUDGMENT Arun Mishra, J. 1. Present appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff/ Appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24-11-1997 passed by Additional District Judge, Morena. He filed civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to agricultural land situated at village Jigni bearing survey Nos. 2,3,4 and 6 area three bigha 15 biswas. He claimed the right of sub-tenancy from the time of his father which was created by Purshottam Pujari. Since then, the Plaintiff alleged that sixty years have elapsed. Bhajana was cultivating the land and paying land revenue to Purshottam Pujari. Thereafter, Banshi was cultivating the land. Thereafter, Appellant succeeded to Bhajana. He has acquired the right of occupancy tenant as per the M. P. Land Revenue Code by operation of law. It is alleged that after the death of Purshottam Pujari name of Jagannath Prasad was mutated. Later on name of Yadvendra has been recorded in the revenue record. Jagannath Prasad initiated the proceedings before the Tehsildar Morena under Section 248 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code for dispossession of the Plaintiff. Order of ejectment was passed by the Tehsildar and fine of Rs. 200/- was imposed. The matter travelled upto the board of Revenue and the Plaintiff lost. It is alleged that land belonged to Aukaf department. Defendant contested the suit and contended that the disputed land is belonging to the Government and was given to a temple of Mahadev. There was no right with any Pujari to create any lease. The trial Court dismissed the suit recording the finding that the land is of Aukaf department and was given to a temple for its upkeep and no right of tenancy can be acquired. Appellate Court has affirmed the finding recorded by the trial Court in its judgment and decree. This second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the proceedings initiated by the State under Section 248 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code were illegal and without jurisdiction? (ii) Whether the possession of the Appellant was established for more than sixty years and the decree passed by the Court below is against the weight of evidence? (iii) Whether the Courts below have not followed the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kanchaniya reported in 1992 Revenue Nirnay 194? 2. (ii) Whether the possession of the Appellant was established for more than sixty years and the decree passed by the Court below is against the weight of evidence? (iii) Whether the Courts below have not followed the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kanchaniya reported in 1992 Revenue Nirnay 194? 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has mainly urged that Plaintiff being in settled possession injunction sought to have been granted not to dispossess. He placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gajendra Singh s/o Ramsingh v. Mansingh and others, 2000 (2) MPLJ 316 . He urged that even if no right can accrue on the Aukaf land and Purshottam Pujari is not competent to create any such right. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that a direction issued in the case of Kanchania v. Shivram and others, 1992 R. N. 194 ought to have been passed. In the case of Kanchania the Apex Court has clearly held that Pujari was not competent to create the rights on the land of the Aukaf department given for the management of Devasthan. Division Bench of this Court in the case Panchamsingh v. Kishandas Guru Ramdas and others, 1971 MPLJ 745 : AIR 1972 MP 14 , has taken a view that application filed by Pujari is maintainable under Section 248(1) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code and the possession of such a person has been inducted by Pujari, no right of tenancy could accrue to such a person. The Apex Court has also taken a view that Pujari was not competent to grant lease in respect of the land and no rights could accrue on the basis of lease under Sections 185, 189, and 190 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. 3. The substantial question of law No. 1 is squarely covered by the decision of Panchamsingh (supra). Substantial question of law No. 2 is also squarely answered by the said decision and no right can accrue by possessing the land for any length of time. 4. Learned Counsel made a last submission regarding issuance of direction to Aukaf department of the Government of M. P. to consider whether the Appellant can be permitted to cultivate the said land. It is open for the Appellant to approach the Aukaf department for such a relief. 5. 4. Learned Counsel made a last submission regarding issuance of direction to Aukaf department of the Government of M. P. to consider whether the Appellant can be permitted to cultivate the said land. It is open for the Appellant to approach the Aukaf department for such a relief. 5. I find no merit in the present appeal. Plaintiff is not entitled for injunction in view of the ejectment order passed against him under Section 248 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. In the result, the appear is without merit and the same is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.