Back
2018 Supreme(Chh) 413
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
SANJAY AGRAWAL, J.
Jitendra Goel, S/o Shri Ratanlal Goel - Appellant
Versus
Sewakram Pandey, S/o Late G.R. Pandey & Ors. - Respondents
MA No. 27 of 2018
Decided On : 01-08-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Manoj Paranjpe with Shri Ankur Agrawal, learned Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. B.P. Gupta, learned Advocate, Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, Panel Lawyer.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 18 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 43 Rule 1(r) – Acquisition of Land - Civil Suit - Suit for declaration and Injunction – Appeal has preferred by plaintiff questioning Order - Appeal are that suit for declaration and injunction was filed by plaintiff submitting, inter alia, that he acquired the valid right, title and interest upon land in question admeasuring respectively as 0.182 hectares, 0.061 hectares and 0.121 hectares, total admeasuring 0.364 hectares on strength of a registered deed of sale purported to have been executed in his favour by its real owner defendant No.2. According to plaintiff, a part of the suit land, i.e., admeasuringhectares and piece of land admeasuring 0.0557 hectares has acquired for widening the road for National Highway by the Sub-Divisional Officer Land Acquisition Officer while initiating acquisition proceedings against defendant No.1, which was registered as Land Acquisition Case It is pleaded by the plaintiff that in the month of January he came to know about said acquisition proceedings and further came to know that the revenue papers in relation to the suit land are in the name of defendant No.1, who informed him in response to his notice, that he acquired the valid title over the suit land by virtue of the registered deed of sale executed in pursuance to the execution of ex parte decree passed in a suit for specific performance of contract instituted by defendant No.1 against his vendor – Held, Amount of compensation so assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the said Land Acquisition Case pertaining to the part of suit land, as acquired there under, shall be deposited in a Nationalised Bank in a short term deposit by the Land Acquisition Officer, so that, amount would yield interest and, which would be available for the benefit of the successful party in the suit. A copy of this Order may be placed before the concerned Land Acquisition Officer for doing the needful in this regard. No order as to costs - Court has not entered into the merits of the case and the trial Court would not be influenced by any of the observations of mine while deciding this appeal – Appeal disposed of
1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the C.P.C.) questioning the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 31-A/2017, by which, the application filed by him under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. has been refused
2. Facts leading to this appeal are that a suit for declaration and injunction was filed by the plaintiff submitting, inter alia, that he acquired the valid right, title and interest upon the land in question bearing Kh.Nos.383/2, 383/3 and 402 admeasuring respectively as 0.182 hectares, 0.061 hectares and 0.121 hectares, total admeasuring 0.364 hectares on the strength of a registered deed of sale dated 20.12.2005, purported to have been executed in his favour by its real owner, i.e., R.K. Dubey, the defendant No.2. According to the plaintiff, a part of the suit land, i.e., bearing Kh. No. 402 admeasuring 0.121 hectares and a piece of land admeasuring 0.0557 hectares of Kh.No.383/2 has been acquired for widening the road for National Highway No. 43/30 by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum- Land Acquisition Officer while initiating the acquisition proceedings against defendant No.1, which was registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 09(5)/A-82/2014-15. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that in the month of January, 2017, he came to know about the said acquisition proceedings and further came to know that the revenue papers in relation to the suit land are in the name of defendant No.1, who informed him in response to his notice, that he acquired the valid title over the suit land by virtue of the registered deed of sale dated 24.02.2012 executed in pursuance to the execution of ex parte decree dated 30.10.2010 passed in a suit for specific performance of contract instituted by him (defendant No.1) against his vendor R.K. Dubey (defendant No.2).
3. It is pleaded further in the plaint that since he had already acquired valid right, title and interest over the suit land way back in 2005 from his vendor R.K. Dubey, therefore, defendant No.1, in collusion with his vendor has obtained the alleged ex parte decree in a suit for specific performance contract by playing fraud upon the Court. Based upon these facts, the instant suit has been filed seeking declaration to the effect that the alleged ex parte decree is null and void with a further claim for restraining defendant No.1 to obtain the amount of compensation as assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the said acquisition proceedings.
4. Along with aforesaid claim, an application enumerated under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. has been made while reiterating the aforesaid facts and praying for restraining defendant No.1 from obtaining the amount of compensation so assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the said acquisition proceedings.
5. Defendant No.1, while filing the written statement and reply to the said application for issuance of temporary injunction, contested the claim by saying that the suit as framed is not maintainable as the plaintiff has no right to question the validity of the alleged decree passed in a suit for specific performance of contract instituted by him against defendant No.2 on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 30.07.2008. It is pleaded therein that he acquired valid right, title and interest on the basis of the registered deed of sale dated 24.02.2012 executed in pursuance to the execution of the alleged decree and since the revenue papers were also mutated accordingly, therefore, he cannot be restrained from obtaining the alleged amount of compensation passed in the said acquisition proceedings.
6. After considering the rival submissions of the parties, the trial Court, vide its impugned order dated 22.03.2018, has rejected the said application for grant of temporary injunction observing that though prima facie case and balance of convenience are in favour of the
