Back
2014 Supreme(MP) 676
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
U.C. MAHESHWARI, J.
Mohni Devi - Appellant
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 545 of 2012
Decided On : 09/05/2014
Validity of possession under Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976, and abatement of proceedings under repealed Act were central legal points. Appellant's possession claim was deemed encroachment and not legally valid.
Headnote:
CPC - Appeal against dismissal of suit for declaration and perpetual injunction with respect to disputed land - Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 - Sections 8(3), 10(5), 10(6) - Appellant claimed possession based on oral agreement and registered sale deed - State authorities claimed possession under Ceiling Act - Appellant's appeal dismissed by lower courts - Substantial questions of law raised on possession and abatement of proceedings - Appellate Court dismissed appeal under Section 100 of CPC
Fact of the Case:
Appellant filed suit for declaration and perpetual injunction over disputed land, claiming possession based on oral agreement and registered sale deed. State authorities claimed possession under Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976. Lower courts dismissed the suit. Appellant appealed under Section 100 of CPC, raising substantial questions of law on possession and abatement of proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
Courts found that disputed land was declared surplus under the Ceiling Act, and possession was taken by state authorities. Appellant's possession claim during pendency of ceiling proceedings was not upheld. Courts held that appellant's possession was encroachment and not legally valid. Appellate Court dismissed the appeal under Section 100 of CPC.
Issues: Possession claim based on oral agreement and sale deed, abatement of proceedings under repealed Act, and validity of state authorities' possession under Ceiling Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Appellant's possession claim during pendency of ceiling proceedings was not upheld. Possession taken by state authorities under Ceiling Act was deemed valid. Appellant's possession was considered encroachment and not legally valid. Appellate Court dismissed the appeal under Section 100 of CPC.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed under Section 100 of CPC, with no order as to costs.
On behalf of the appellant/ plaintiff this appeal is preferred under Section 100 of CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2012 passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Regular Appeal No.56/2011 affirming the judgment and decree dated 4.2.2011 passed by the 8th Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal in Civil Original Suit No.169-A/2009, whereby her suit filed for declaration and perpetual injunction with respect of the land in dispute described in plaint has been dismissed.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the appellant/ plaintiff filed the impugned suit for declaration and perpetual injunction with respect of the land bearing survey No.428/1/2 area 0.37 acre out of total area 8.77 acres contending that she entered into an oral agreement in the year 1992 with Bhoomiswami Munshilal and Rajaram to purchase the aforesaid land and pursuant to it the possession of such land was also obtained by her. Subsequent to it the registered sale deed of this land was also executed in her favour by the aforesaid Bhoomiswami on 26.2.1994 and since then she is coming in possession of the land. It is further contended that she had also applied to Tahsildar, Circle Bairagarh, Bhopal for mutation of such land in her name but without conducting proper inquiry the same was dismissed holding that aforesaid land being not recorded in the name of the seller of the aforesaid sale deed, as such the same is recorded in the name of State of Madhya Pradesh could not be mutated in her name. It is also stated that possession of the disputed part of the land was never taken by the authorities of the respondent under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 (in short 'the Act') as such after declaring the aforesaid land to be the surplus under the Ceiling Act the same was recorded in the name of State of Madhya Pradesh illegally. In any case, its possession was never taken by the State authorities either from the appellant/ plaintiff or from its earlier owner/ Bhoomiswami. It is further stated that mere on account of non-recording the name of the plaintiff/ appellant over such land in the revenue record, it could not be said that she did not have the right and title over the land. With these pleadings the plaintiff/appellant had filed the aforesaid suit to declare her to be the Bhoomiswami of such land with a further prayer to issue perpetual injunction to restrain the authorities of the respondent to interfere in her possession of such land in any manner.
3. In the written statement of the respondent/State, by denying the averments of the plaint, it is stated that the disputed part of the land is not in possession of the appellant/ plaintiff and her mutation application after carrying out proper inquiry was rightly dismissed. It is further stated that in respect of entire land of aforesaid Khasra No. 428/1/2 area 8.77 acres under the provision of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation), Act, 1976 (in short 'the Act') a ceiling case No. 57/91-92 was registered against the then Bhoomi-swami named above and in such proceeding out of the aforesaid land by deeming four acres land to be dry land and considering Munshilal and Rajaram to be one unit in this regard 0.37 acre land was left and remaining land was declared to be surplus and same was acquisitioned. In this regard in accordance with the procedure provided under Section 8(3) of the Act the proceeding was carried out and its intimation was also given to the Bhoomiswami/land holder and thereafter by preparing a memorandum (Panchnama) the possession of such surplus land (including the disputed land) was taken over by the authorities of the revenue department on 12-2-2000. On filing the appeal against the order of competent Authority by the then Bhoomi-swami/land holder in the Court of Commissioner, the same was dismissed by appellate authority vide order dated 25.9.1995 and accordingly the surplus land was recorded in the name of the State of Madhya Pr
