Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 835 (MP)

Indur Singh v. Narmada Bai

2017-07-18

RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY

body2017
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. This civil revision has been filed under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code read with section 151 of CPC against the order dated 22.4.2017 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Devri, District Sagar in Civil Suit No.83A/2016 whereby learned Civil Judge rejected the applicant's application filed under section 9 of CPC that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit. 3. Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this revision are that non-applicants No.1 and 2/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No.83A/2016 before the Civil Judge, Class-II, Devri, District Sagar for claiming relief of declaration of title, partition and possession over the suit lands situated at Village Ram Kheri, Tahsil Kesli, District, Sagar and Village Madanpur, Tahsil Kesli, District Sagar and also for declaration that they are entitled to get 1/4th part of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in lieu of acquisition of some part of suit land situated at Village Madanpur, Tahsil Kesli, District Sagar, acquired by the Government for constructing Dam and Canal. 4. During trial of the suit, applicant/defendant No.1 of the suit filed an application under section 9 of CPC stating that non-applicants No.1 and 2 had also filed a suit seeking declaration that they are entitled to get part of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in lieu of acquisition of some part of suit land situate at Village Madanpur, Tahsil Kesli, District Sagar acquired by the Government for constructing Dam and Canal. While according to the provisions of section 63 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear such disputes. So suit is not maintainable and pray for rejection of the suit. Non-applicants No.1 and 2/plaintiff in his reply opposed the prayer. Learned Civil Judge rejected the application by order dated 24.4.2017 observing that in the suit non-applicants No.1 and 2 did not challenge the validity of land acquisition order. They filed suit seeking declaration, injunction and partition and civil Court has jurisdiction to hear such suit. Being aggrieved from that order, applicants filed this civil revision. 5. Learned Civil Judge rejected the application by order dated 24.4.2017 observing that in the suit non-applicants No.1 and 2 did not challenge the validity of land acquisition order. They filed suit seeking declaration, injunction and partition and civil Court has jurisdiction to hear such suit. Being aggrieved from that order, applicants filed this civil revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that a part of suit land Survey No.8/1 area 4.970 hectare and 22/1 area 4.970 hectare situated at Village Madanpur was already acquired by the Government for construction of Dam and compensation amount has also been settled. Civil suit regarding apportionment of compensation amount is not maintainable. Learned Civil Judge without appreciating that fact wrongly rejected the applicant's application. 6. This Court has gone through the record and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. It appeared from the averment of the plaint that non-applicants No.1 and 2 besides seeking relief of declaration that they are entitled to get part of the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in lieu of acquisition of some part of suit land situated at Village Madanpur, Tahsil Kesli, also filed the suit for claiming relief of declaration of title, partition and possession over the suit lands situated at Village Ram Kheri Tahsil Kesli, District Sagar and remaining suit land situated at Village Ramkheri, Tahsil Kesali, District Sagar. And regarding that land suit for declaration, injunction and partition is maintainable. 7. There cannot be a partial rejection of the plaint as held by apex Court in D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman and others, reported in AIR 1999 SC 1128 . Hence, the petition is disposed of with the observation that petitioner is free to raise his objections in his written statement which will be decided by the trial Court after recording of the evidence according to law without being influenced by its earlier order and by the order passed herein. 8. Accordingly, this revision petition stands disposed of.