The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain cases related to land acquisition proceedings, and a sale deed does not confer any title if the seller did not have any right in the property.

U.C. Maheshwari, J.

1.This order shall govern the question of admission of above mentioned both the appeals, as the same have been arisen out of a common judgment passed by the Appellate Court in two different appeals arising out of a judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Civil Original Suit No. 25- A/08 filed on behalf of the Appellants.

2. These appeals are directed by the Appellants/Plaintiffs under Section 100 of Code of Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the common judgment and decree dated 21-4-2010 passed by 17th Additional District Judge (FTC), Jabalpur in Civil Regular Appeal No. 44-A/08 filed by the Appellants and Civil Regular Appeal No. 45-A/08 filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and 2 whereby dismissing their Appeal No. 44-A/08, the findings of the judgment and decree dated 22-9-2008 passed by 15th Civil Judge, Class-II, Jabalpur in Civil Original Suit No. 25-A/08 dismissing their suit in part for perpetual injunction with respect of land bearing Survey No. 99/21 (Old No. ) area 0.029 hector (4307.33 Sq. Ft.) situated at village Khairi, Tahsil and District Jabalpur, has been affirmed while allowing the appeal of Respondent No. 1 and 2 me findings of such judgment of trial Court whereby the suit of the Appellants was decree for perpetual injunction with respect of land bearing Survey No. 99/26 (Old No. ) area 0.040 hector (2153.66 Sq. Ft.) situated in the same village has been set aside and accordingly the Appellants suit was dismissed in its entirety.

3. Hereinafter in this Order the Appellants of both the appeals are being said to be Plaintiffs while the Respondent No. 1 to 3 are being said to be the Defendant No. 1 to 3 respectively.

4. The facts giving rise to these appeals in short are that the Appellants/Plaintiffs filed the abovementioned suit for perpetual injunction against the Defendant No. 1 to 3/contending that they being Bhoomi-swami of the abovementioned land bearing survey No. 99/26 and 99/21 area 0.040 and 0.029 hector respectively are in possession of the same. The same was purchased by them from its earlier Bhoomiswami/the Defendant No. 3 Ashok Kumar Jain, vide registered sale deed dated 24-8-1998. Pursuant to that after recording their names in the Revenue Record the requisite Bhoo-Adhikar Pustika were also issued to them. Subsequent to purchase the land the Revenue Department has changed the Survey number of those land, the same has become Survey No. 214/4. The Respondent No. 1 and 2 without having any title, right or authority are interfering in their possession of such land. It is also stated that on earlier occasions also such Respondents tried to interfere in possession of their predecessor in title the Defendant No. 3. On which the Defendant No. 3 filed a Civil Original Suit No. 302-A/94 for perpetual injunction against the Defendant No. 1, 2 and some other official of the State. The same was decreed and Respondents along with other official of the State were restrained to interfere with respect of said land in possession of the Defendant No. 3, Ashok Kumar Jain. It is further stated that Defendant No. 1 being established by the State Government under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Grah Nirman Mandal Act, 1972 is functioning through Defendant No. 2 and by virtue of Section 48 of Land Acquisition Act they had power to purchase and acquisition of the land. The disputed land was never acquisitioned in accordance with the provision of Sections 48 and 49 of Land Acquisition Act. In spite of it, without having any title, right or authority on 24-8-2006 the Defendants have collected some construction material on such land. On receiving such information from some contractor that the Defendant No. 1 and 2 are going to construct the road on such land. In order to protect the possession of the land the Appellants filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the Respondent No. 1 and 2 from any interference in their possession of such land.

5. In the written statement of D