Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 956 (MP)

Mahendra Singh Sisodiya v. State of M. P.

2017-09-01

NANDITA DUBEY

body2017
JUDGMENT 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This second appeal, filed by the plaintiff/appellant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.6.2015 passed in Civil Appeal No. 94-A/2014 by the 13th Additional District Judge, Bhopal (M.P.), arising out of judgment and decree dated 24.3.2014 passed in Civil Suit No. 379-A/2011 by 18th Civil Judge Class I, Bhopal whereby the suit filed by him was dismissed. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that plaintiff/appellant filed a suit declaring the 'batan' proceedings with regard to Survey No.147/87, area 0.55 acres, situated at Village Palasi, Patwari Halka No.5, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal as null and void and for recording his name on the land bearing Survey No.141/87/1 instead of the name of the State Government, pleading that he is the owner of Survey No.141/87. As per the Government scheme for computerization of the record, he had deposited his old bahi with Nazul Circle, Bairagarh, District Bhopal. In the new book (bahi) received by him, his land was reduced and a new survey number 141/86/2 with area 0.069 hectares, whereas 0.38 acres of his land was declared surplus in the civil proceedings and a new Survey No.141/87/1, got recorded in the name of State Government. It has been alleged that plaintiff is an illiterate person and taking advantage of this fact, the Government officials have played fraud with him and without informing him, has acquired his 0.38 decimal of land as surplus ceiling land. He has further alleged that he has not been given any compensation nor the possession has been taken from him. 4. The defendants/State submitted its written statement and denied the plaint averments. It has been contended that 0.38 acres of survey No.141/87/1 has been acquired after giving proper notice to the plaintiff and inviting objections. The land was acquired under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, after following the due process of law and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. The trial Court framed necessary issues and after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit. 6. The trial Court has recorded a finding that in revenue Case No.52/92-93, after giving due notice to the plaintiff, 0.38 acres of land was found as surplus and after gazette notification, the same was declared as surplus land in the year 1995-96. 6. The trial Court has recorded a finding that in revenue Case No.52/92-93, after giving due notice to the plaintiff, 0.38 acres of land was found as surplus and after gazette notification, the same was declared as surplus land in the year 1995-96. This order under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act became final as the same was not challenged by the plaintiff, therefore, binding on the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. 7. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit, the plaintiff preferred a first appeal. The appellate Court after detailed reappraisal of the entire evidence on record, affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 8. Undettered by the successive failures, the plaintiff is before this Court in second appeal, raising the same contentions as has been raised before the Courts below. 9. Having heard Shri Lalji Kushwha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and on perusal on record, it is observed that the plaintiff has come with a case that he had no knowledge about the ceiling proceedings, which were conducted behind his back. According to appellant, this fact came to his knowledge in the year 2011, when he applied for the computerized copy of his bahi. However, it is apparent from Ex.D-4, dated 17.5.1992 that in Revenue Case No.13/91-92, a notice by the Competent Authority (Nagar Bhumi Seema), Bhopal was issued to the plaintiff inviting objections on or before 29.5.1992. Pursuant to which, the objections were filed by the plaintiff vide Ex.D-5 dated 29.5.1992. Thereafter, another notice (Ex.D-6) under 6(1) of the Act was issued asking the plaintiff to remain present on 3.3.1993 at the office of the Collector for hearing on his objections. Vide Annexure D-7 dated 4.3.1993, final settlement was made and 0.38 acres of petitioner's land from survey No.141/87 was declared as surplus and consequent notification was issued and possession was taken by the Tahsildar, Nazal on 12.2.2000. It is also reflected from Ex.D-8 that compensation proceedings were separately initiated. The competent authority had sent the copy of the final statement to the plaintiff along with notice (Ex.D-11) dated 5.3.1993. It is important to note that this final order has not been challenged by the plaintiff till the date of filing of the present suit. It is also reflected from Ex.D-8 that compensation proceedings were separately initiated. The competent authority had sent the copy of the final statement to the plaintiff along with notice (Ex.D-11) dated 5.3.1993. It is important to note that this final order has not been challenged by the plaintiff till the date of filing of the present suit. Furthermore, the details of revenue paid by the plaintiff only with regard to Survey No.141/87/2 for 0.69 hectares for the year 2008-09, as mentioned in the Bhoo Adhikar Pustika (Ex.P-19), clearly established that plaintiff was aware of the whole proceedings and that is why he has paid the revenue only for survey No.141/87/2 and not for Survey No.141/87/1. 10. In view of the aforediscussed, no interference is warranted in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises for adjudication in the present appeal. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.