Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 228 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Arjun Singh

2019-03-13

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2019
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition challenging the order dated 24.10.2017 passed by I Civil Judge, Class-II, Badnagar, District-Ujjain in Civil Suit No. 20- A/2017 whereby the application filed under Order VII rule 11 of CPC readwith section 57(2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code has been dismissed. 2. The respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction for declaring that the order passed by Additional Collector, Ujjain in Case No. 21-A-74/2011-12 dated 13.2.2013 is legal and valid and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division Ujjain in Case No. 249/12/13/Appeal dated 28.2.2015 and the order passed by the Board of Revenue M.P., Gwalior in Case No. 678/II-15 dated 7.12.2016 be declared as illegal and void. It is prayed that plaintiff/respondent No.1 be declared as owner/Bhumiswami and possessee of Survey No. 52/2, admeasuring 0.77 hectare land situated in Village-Tokra, Tehsil Badnagar, District-Ujjain. The plaintiff also sought a permanent injunction from restraining/dispossessing him from the aforesaid suit property. In the present case, the plaintiff has approached the civil Court for declaration that the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue in its jurisdiction be declared as null and void without assailing the same before the Competent Court of law. The order passed by the Additional Collector was set aside by Additional Commissioner which was further affirmed by the Board of Revenue. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed a suit before the trial Court relying upon section 57 (2) of the MPLRC. Therefore, the trial Court vide order dated 24.10.2017 has dismissed the said application holding that the suit is maintainable. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner/State submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, void and perverse, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed and the suit was required to be dismissed. It is argued that the trial Court erred in holding that the law does not bar from filing of any civil suit whereas section 257 of the MPLRC itself is clear that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in entertaining such disputes is specifically excluded. It is argued that the trial Court erred in holding that the law does not bar from filing of any civil suit whereas section 257 of the MPLRC itself is clear that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in entertaining such disputes is specifically excluded. It also argued that the learned trial Court committed grave error in dismissing the application, therefore, being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has filed the present civil revision before this Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order passed by the trial Court and placed reliance on Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the matter of State of M.P. v. Balveer Singh [2001 RN 343], as well as on the judgment passed in Hukum Singh (DEAD) by LRs. and others v. State of M.P. [ (2005) 10 SCC 124 ], and prays that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. 6. From perusal of the record, it appears that respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction praying for declaration that the order dated 13.2.2013 passed by the Additional Collector, District-Ujjain is legal and valid and also the orders passed by Additional Commissioner, Ujjain and also Board of Revenue M.P., Gwalior be declared as illegal and void. The plaintiff further prayed for declaring himself to be the Bhumiswami and possessee of disputed land. During pendency of the suit, an application under Order VII rule 11 of CPC readwith section 57(2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code was filed for rejection of the suit as the same is specifically barred by law. By impugned order dated 24.10.2017 the trial Court has rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been filed. 7. By impugned order dated 24.10.2017 the trial Court has rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been filed. 7. From perusal of the relief, it appears that the claim in the plaint for declaring himself to be the owner/Bhumiswami as well as possessee right over the suit property and also the judgments passed by Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of State of M.P. (supra), as well as on the judgment passed in Hukum Singh (supra), wherein it has been held that a bhumiswami is not bound to avail himself of the speedy remedy provided in section 250 of CPC1 and it is open to him to take recourse to the summary remedy under section 250 of CPC. There has been a decision under section 250 of CPC (M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959) by a Revenue Court, the parties aggrieved may institute a civil suit to establish his title to the disputed land. 8. In light of the aforesaid judgments passed by Hon'ble apex Court and also the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, I do not find any reason to interfere in the orders passed by the Court below. Accordingly, the present civil revision petition stands dismissed hereby.