( 1 ) AN unsuccessful plaintiff being aggrieved by the dismissal of her suit vide judgment and decree dated 12-5-1995 passed by First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bhopal in C. O. S. No. 110-A/88 has knocked the door of this Court for decreeing the suit.

( 2 ) FACTS giving rise to this appeal are that as per pleadings of the plaint, the appellant and her late husband Vesimal had come from Pakistan on partition of country. Initially they resided at Devlali Camp then shifted to Bairagarh in 1952-53 where they have been inducted in a 2, B barrack, the old quarter situated on the land of "smt. Aftab Jahan Begum". The aforesaid induction took place at the instance of the Officers of the rehabilitation department, the department of Central Govt. As aforesaid area was taken over by Central Government from the then erstwhile State of Bhopal for such rehabilitation. The aforesaid Bhoomiswami "smt. Aftab Jahan Begum" the land lady was the wife of the Nawab of said old state of Bhopal. No order in writing was given to plaintiff at the time of induction but she remained in possession of the property.

( 3 ) IT is also pleaded that the aforesaid land is still recorded in the name of said "smt. Aftab Jahan Begum" as Bhoomiswami in the revenue record. After her demise the nawab Sajida Sultan has become the bhoomiswami, as such, this land was never recorded or owned by respondent No. 2 State of Madhya Pradesh as Bhoomiswami, thus respondent No. 2 had no authority to initiate any proceedings for eviction or removal to appellant from its possession.

( 4 ) THE appellant's possession was never obstructed by aforesaid Bhoomiswami or her legal representatives by any method either by filing the suit for possession or any other proceedings as such she remained in peaceful and uninterrupted possession as an owner of the property and perfected her title over the property by adverse possession by extinguishing the right of said recorded landlady.

( 5 ) AFTER inducting to plaintiff a hospital was constructed by respondent No. 2 on the other part of the said land adjoining to disputed quarter, it was further extended by constructing the building and boundary wall, consequently, barracks had come inside of the said boundary wall. But mere on this basis without any other documentary evidence this property could not be assumed to be the property of respondent No. 2. This property was never remained as public premises. Thus the M. P. Lok Parisar (Badakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 ("the Adhiniyam" in short) or its any provision are not applicable to this premises, but contrary to this the respondent No. 3 had taken cognizance in the aforesaid Adhiniyam by issuing the notices under S. 4 of the said Adhiniyam dated 7-1-87 and subsequently under S. 5 of the said Adhiniyam dated 10-2-88 for vacating the premises on appeal, the Commissioner bhopal has upheld the said notices vide order dated 18-11-88. The aforesaid proceedings was decided without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Thus the suit for declaration and injunction was filed by appellant against the respondents and impleading the recorded Bhoomiswami.

( 6 ) THE said recorded Bhoomiswami was remained ex parte in trial Court.

( 7 ) IN written statement of respondents no. 2 and 3, all material pleadings as pleaded by appellant have been denied except the construction of the hospital and boundary wall by which said quarter has come inside of the said boundary wall. The initiation of the proceedings under the adhiniyam and issuing notices have been accepted. The maintainability of the suit is challenged on the strength of Section 15 of the Adhiniyam.

( 8 ) IN view of the pleadings of the parties issues were framed, after recording the evidence, on consideration it was held that the property in dispute was not remained the property of "smt. Aftab Jahan Begum", as it was a property of erstwhile State. Appellant has not perfected any right of title by adverse possession. It w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document