Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1348 (MP)

Chittar Singh v. Gram Panchayat, Barwai

2000-12-21

R.B.DIXIT

body2000
Short Note The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this revision lie in a narrow compass; The petitioner/plaintiff had filed a civil suit No. 36A/98, in the Court of Civil Judge. Class I, Kurwai for declaration of his title and permanent injunction against respondents on the ground that Patta was granted to him by Gram Panchayat Barwai of the disputed portion of the land in the year 1977 and since than, he is residing in temporary hut erected on stone slabs on this land. The trouble started with the petitioner on account of his contesting election of Sarpanch against respondent No. 1, with the result, respondent No.1 got a resolution No. 26 dtd. 20.8.98 and No. 45 dtd. 19.10.97 passed against the petitioner cancelling his Patta of the land and serving him with a notice to be evicted from the disputed land. In reply, filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, theory of grant of Patta to the petitioner, was rejected out-rightly holding him trespasser on the land of Gram Panchayat, The learned trial Court by the order dtd. 19.11.98, rejected the prayer for temporary injunction of the petitioner and learned 1st Addl. Judge to Distt. Judge, Vidisha in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 35/99, by order dtd. 27.10.99, also confirmed the order of trial Court, against which, the petitioner has filed this revision. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the Courts below had found possession of petitioner on the date of filing of the suit. in the circumstances, when petitioner is found to be in settled possession of the disputed land, his possession even if termed as 'tres-pass' has to be protected till final decision of the case. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in the case of State of M. P. v. M/s. Hariom General Industries reported in AIR 1992 MP 286 , and the Division Bench's decision of this Court in the case of Gajendra Singh v. Mansingh and others reported in 2000 (2) MPLJ 316 . On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of contesting respondent that petitioner has recently encroached upon the land of Gram Panchayat and has created a fake Patta in his favour. It has further been argued that in 1977, M.P. Panchayat Act. On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of contesting respondent that petitioner has recently encroached upon the land of Gram Panchayat and has created a fake Patta in his favour. It has further been argued that in 1977, M.P. Panchayat Act. 1962 was in-force where under, the Gram Panchayat was not authorised to grant any Patta on the Government land. Section 65 of M.P. Panchayats Act, 1962. provides that no immovable property vested in or belonging to Gram Panchayat, shall be transferred by sell gift mortgage or exchange or by lease for a period exceeding three years or otherwise except with sanction of the State Government or any officer authorised by it in this behalf. Admittedly Patta in favour of petitioner (original of which has not been filed anywhere). suggests that Patta was not granted with the sanction of State Govt. or any officer authorised in this behalf. particularly when the Patta has been granted for indefinite period. However since Patta has been filed on behalf of petitioner and petitioner claims to be in possession since 1977, on the basis of such Patta the effect of his continuous possession for more than 20 years has to he examined by the Court in the light of the provisions of section 65 envisaged under M.P. Panchayats Act. 1962. It is not disputed that on the date of the suit the plaintiff/petitioner was in possession of the disputed land and prima facie there appears to be a ground to examine the claim of petitioner on the disputed land. In the circumstances his possession has to be ex-protected by way of granting interim injunction in his favour till final decision of the case. In facts and circumstances both the Courts below erred in law in holding that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and he being a tres-passer is not entitled to be protected by granting temporary injunction in his favour. In facts and circumstances both the Courts below erred in law in holding that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and he being a tres-passer is not entitled to be protected by granting temporary injunction in his favour. In so far as cancellation of Patta by Gram Panchayat is concerned it is to be made clear that such a resolution was not properly passed by Gram Panchayat and is being contested on merits by the petitioner and validity of such a resolution has to be examined by the Court also therefore the resolution of Gram Panchayat regarding cancellation of Patta will not affect the rights of the petitioner in holding possession on the land until further orders. In the circumstances status quo has to be maintained by issuance of temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner. For the reasons stated hereinabove the revision is allowed and the orders refusing temporary injunction by both the Courts below are hereby set-aside. It is directed that the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of possession on the disputed land until further orders. However it is directed that the Court below are not to be influenced by any of the observation made hereinabove at the time of final decision of the case.