Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1092 (MP)

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jairam, S/o Asharam

2012-10-31

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2012
Judgment A.K. Shrivastava, J.- 1. By taking the shelter of Section 96 CPC, the unsuccessful defendants have preferred this appeal assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 5.5.2005 passed by learned 10th Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 54-A/2003 decreeing the suit of plaintiffs. In brief, the case of the plaintiffs is that although the disputed land was declared surplus by the State of M.P. and its functionaries under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, the 'Ceiling Act') but before the prescribed date, i.e. 22.3.1999 since the possession was not obtained and the land in question is still in possession of the respondents/plaintiffs in terms of Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short, the 'Repeal Act'), the proceedings have abated and now the possession of the suit property cannot be taken from the plaintiffs. 2. The defendants have refuted the plaint averments by filing the written statement and pleaded that possession was already obtained prior to the cut off date and, therefore, the Repeal Act has no application in the present suit and, hence, it has been prayed that the suit be dismissed. 3. The learned Trial Court after examining the witnesses and placing reliance upon the documents which were filed by the plaintiffs vis-a-vis to the documents filed by the defendants and after appreciating the evidence came to hold that although the land in question was declared surplus under the Ceiling Act but possession was not obtained prior to the cut off date 22.3.1999 and, therefore, by decreeing the suit of plaintiffs held that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and are the owner thereof. 4. In this manner this appeal has been filed by the appellant/State. 5. I have heard Shri Santosh Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant and Shri Amitabh Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. 4. In this manner this appeal has been filed by the appellant/State. 5. I have heard Shri Santosh Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant and Shri Amitabh Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. There is sufficient force in the submission of Shri Amitabh Gupta, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents that although the defence of the appellants is clothed by endorsing the fact that possession was obtained prior to the cut off date i.e. 22.3.1999 but it is only an eye wash and the documents which are placed on record itself speaks that possession was never obtained. On bare perusal of the material document, Ex. P/5 which are the order sheets of the proceedings in the Ceiling Act, it is gathered that on 19.9.1996 it was directed to obtain possession in terms of Section 10(5) of the Ceiling Act, however, the possession was not obtained and Tahsildar reminded to do accordingly. Thereafter, in another order sheet dated 6.1.2000 the report of obtaining possession was not at all received. Indeed, this document Ex. P/5 which is the certified copy of the order sheets was also confronted to the defendants' witness Madhu Nahar (DW-1) Tahsildar, but she put her inability to say anything in regard to Ex. P/5. 7. According to me, impliedly she has admitted that possession was never obtained but expressly since she cannot say because she has been examined on behalf of the State that possession was never obtained. On bare perusal of this document the only inference which can be drawn is that possession of the suit property was never obtained by the State of M.P. although the land in question was declared surplus under the Ceiling Act. All the plaintiffs have examined themselves and they have specifically stated that they are possessing the suit property. 8. Apart from this, absolutely no document obtaining possession has been filed and proved by the appellants/defendants. They have also not examined Patwari, Revenue Inspector who had obtained possession of the suit property from the plaintiffs. Further no witness has been examined by the defendants before whom the possession was obtained. Hence, according to me, the learned Trial Court did not err in holding that possession of the suit property was never taken from the plaintiffs/respondents and they are still in possession. Further no witness has been examined by the defendants before whom the possession was obtained. Hence, according to me, the learned Trial Court did not err in holding that possession of the suit property was never taken from the plaintiffs/respondents and they are still in possession. Since it is proved that possession of the suit property was never obtained, therefore, Section 4 of the Repeal Act is triggered and set in motion and now the proceedings have abated and the State of M.P. and its functionaries cannot obtain possession of the suit land from the plaintiffs. 9. I have gone through the reasonings assigned by learned Trial Court and I find them to be cogent as they are based upon correct appreciation of oral and documentary evidence as well as the law on the point. The said judgment is hereby affirmed. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.