IMPORTANT POINT
Khasara entries are relevant only for purposes of paying land revenue. Have nothing to do with ownership.

JUDGMENT

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15th April, 1998 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior in Civil First Appeal No.1 of 1995. By the impugned judgment and decree the High Court allowed the appeal, preferred by plaintiffs- respondents, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and decreed the suit of plaintiffs-respondents.

2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: The respondents were plaintiffs and the appellant- Municipal Corporation, Gwalior was a defendant in the original suit. The Original Civil Suit No.44-A/1985 was filed by plaintiff-respondents against the defendant- the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior seeking declaration that land bearing Original Survey No.486/19 (old) (New Survey No.619) measuring 1 Bigha is owned and possessed by them. They also sought for permanent injunction against the defendant on the ground that Municipal authorities tried to interfere with their possession by dismantling the fencing standing on their land.

3. The case of the plaintiffs was that their ancestors were the owners of the suit land. One Ram Nath was the original tenure-holder (Mool Krishak) and thereafter they became joint Bhumiswami. They claimed to be in possession on the ground that they constructed fencing, Hauda (pond) and Latrine (toilet) on the suit land.

4. By way of an amendment of paragraph 2 of the plaint the plaintiffs had shown their pedigree.

5. Defendant - Municipal Corporation filed a written statement, denied the allegations and asserted that the suit land is an open piece of land belonging to the Corporation and is in its possession. It is reserved for developing park and is used as a parking place and a sign Board to this effect is placed at the spot and the fencing by wire too has been done by Municipal Corporation. It was alleged that the plaintiffs manipulated Khasara entries by committing fraud to include their names.

6. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues :-

"1. Whether the plaintiffs are Bhumiswamis of the disputed land?

2. Whether the Court fee paid by the plaintiffs is insufficient?

3. Whether the defendants can get Rs.3000/- as compensatory cost?

4. Whether the disputed land belongs to the defendant No.2 being Nazul land?

5. Whether the defendant can get Rs. 5,000/- as compensatory cost?

6.

(a) Whether the disputed land belongs to the Nazul department?

(b) If so, whether the land being open belongs to the Municipal Corporation and the same is not owned by the plaintiffs?

7. Reliefs and costs."

7. On hearing the counsel for the parties and on considering the entire evidence, by judgment and decree dated 29th September, 1994, the Trial Court dismissed the suit and held as follows:-

"Issues 1,4 6(a) and 6(b): In absence of notice under Section 401 of the M.P. Municipality Act, 1956 the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiffs are not the owners of the disputed land and the disputed land is the property within the continued ownership and possession and management of the Municipality.

Issue No.2: The Court fee paid is sufficient. Issue No.3 and 5: Even though the suit of the plaintiffs failed but the defendants are not entitled to get the special damages. Issue No.7: On the basis of above findings the suit of the plaintiffs for all the said reliefs is liable to be dismissed with costs."

8. Against the Trial Court's decision, the plaintiffs-respondents preferred a Civil First Appeal No.1 of 1995 in the High Court. After hearing the parties, the High Court by impugned judgment allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court with the following observation: "38. That is the position in this case as well, when the respondents- defendants did not produce property register to show that this property was ever recorded as property of the Municipal Corporation. At one stage it was recorded as Nazul land belonging to the State when the ar