Mudgal, J. 1. The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 26.7.2004 passed by the Court of District Judge, Shivpuri (Smt. Renu Sharma) in Civil Suit No.18-A of 2003 dismissing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. In this appeal, the appellant is referred as ‘plaintiff’ and respondent as ‘defendant’.

2. The facts in short giving rise to the filing of this present appeal are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 52 area 0.55 Hectares (old No.67 and 69) situated in village Veeramkhedi Tehsil Kolaras District Shivpuri. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff, his brother Ashok Kumar, Pramod Kumar and mother are Bhumiswami and in possession of the disputed land. It was further alleged that the plaintiff’s Grandfather and thereafter his father had been in possession of the suit land and had been cultivating the land for morethan 50 years. It was also alleged that on the basis of long possession, the plaintiff has acquired the right of Bhumiswami. The plaintiff’s forefathers prayed for allotment of the suit l and on patta but the defendant wrongly allotted 0.15 hectare land of the survey number in dispute to one Santosh Kumar Son of Shri Ratan Chand, even though on the basis of possession, the plaintiff had a preferential right to get the patta of the suit land. It was also pleaded that some other land of plaintiff’s ownership is situated adjacent to the suit land. On the above said submission, the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff.

3. Denying the allegations made in the plaint, the defendant has submitted that the plaintiff or his forefathers have never been in possession of the disputed property for morethan 50 years as alleged in the plaint. The defendant has further submitted that the disputed property is of the ownership of the State Government. The plaintiff and his father encroached on the same. On the basis of encroachment, the plaintiff cannot acquire either Bhumiswami rights or any tenancy right. The defendant has further contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for by him in the plaint. Moreover, the question related to the allotment of the land cannot be decided by a civil Court. Submitting the written statement, the defendant/State Government prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The following issues have cropped up for consideration in this appeal

(I). Whether, the plaintiff has Bhumiswami rights in the disputed agricultural land?

(ii). Whether, the plaintiff is entitled to get any relief in this case?

(iii). Whether, the findings of impugned judgment and decree are not based on proper reasoning?

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiff’s possession is admitted by the defendant in the written statement in spite of that decree for permanent injunction has not been granted in favour of the plaintiff. Learned counsel has further submitted that the findings recorded by the trial Court are not based on proper reasonings as the plaintiff is in settled possession for a long period and so the defendant State Government has no right to evict the plaintiff from the disputed land without following due process of law.

6. Learned counsel placing reliance on the judgment rendered in Second Appeal no.472 of 2003 Bhaiyalal v. State of M.P. Vide judgment dated 13.11.2006, Rame Gowda (D) by L.Rs v. M.Varadappa Naidu (D) by L.Rs and another 2004 (II) MPWN 25 = AIR 2004 SC 4609 and Shavaram alias Seva v. Deobai 2006 RN 245 = 2006 (2) MPLJ 450 has submitted that the decree for permanent injunction should be granted in favour of the plaintiff.

7. Refuting the arguments submitted by the appellant’s learned counsel, learned counsel for the defendant has submitted that the possession of the plaintiff is not settled possessio