The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of The (Government) Grants Act, 1895, specifically Sections 2 and 3, govern the grants made by the government, and the terms of the grant will be valid and take effect according to their tenor, despite any contrary law or statute.

JUDGMENT :

J.P. GUPTA, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 3.8.2013 passed in Civil Suit No. 19-A/12 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Harda whereby the appellants/plaintiffs suit for declaration of Bhuswami right and the possession over suit land of 1.97 acres land out of Khasra no. 237, area 0.55 acres, Khasra No. 238, area 0.15 acres, Khasra No. 239, area 1.53 acres and to remove the Vardan complex made over it and to delete the name of respondent no. 1 from revenue record and to restrain the respondents/defendants from making any construction and to sell the shops, was rejected.

2. It is not disputed in this case that the aforesaid suit land was given by erstwhile Provincial Government of CP and Berar by Memo dated 20.9.1943 to the Maharashtra Children Club, Harda for use as play ground. The appellant/plaintiff is successor of Maharashtra Children Club. On the aforesaid land, respondents/defendants are constructing sport complex as well as shopping complex on the basis of the aid given by the Central Government to provide multifarious facility for sports with the modern equipments of exercise and play activities.

3. On 3.6.2005, the appellant/plaintiff files a suit before the Additional District Judge, Harda stating that after getting the aforesaid land from the provincial government, the appellant/plaintiff is using it for the purpose of play grounds and cultural activities organized by the institute. On 5.9.1988, a part of aforesaid land was exchanged with the respondent no. 2, Municipal Council, Harda and the appellant/plaintiff is owner of the land and without following the due procedure of law, name of the respondent no. 2/Municipal Council, Harda has been recorded in the revenue record and this fact came into the knowledge of the appellant/plaintiff on 25.4.2005 and it was also come into the notice of the appellant/plaintiff that the respondents/defendants are intended to construct the sport complex and shops, therefore, the suit is filed to get aforesaid relief against the respondents/defendants with permission under Section 80 (2) of the CPC.

4. On behalf of the respondent/defendant nos. 1 and 2 and respondent/defendant nos. 3 to 6 filed written statements separately denied the claim of the plaintiff/appellant and stated that on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, the lands were not being used for sports and cultural activities and on account of breach of terms of the allotment, it has been cancelled and advance possession has been given to the respondent/defendant no. 2, Municipal Council, Harda and in the revenue record, necessary correction has been done in accordance with law and the construction of Vardhan complex and other constructions have been done legally. The appellant/plaintiff has no right and title to challenge it. Apart from it the suit is not maintainable because no notices under Section 80 of the CPC have been given, hence the suit be dismissed.

5. After trial, the learned trial Court has held that the suit land is a state government land and the appellant/plaintiff has not adduced any evidence to show its Bhuswami rights and Patta or ownership over it and it appears that the only permission was given for organizing sports activities and the appellant/plaintiff was not using the disputed land for sports and cultural activities, therefore, the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief in the suit. Further dismissed the suit on the ground of non-compliance of provision of Section 80 (1) of the CPC and Section 319 of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 as the notices required under the aforesaid sections have not been given before filing of the suit.

6. Challenging the aforesaid findings, this appeal has been preferred on the ground that the impugned finding of the learned trial Court is absolutely illegal, erroneous and arbitrary and the learned trial Court has completely failed to appreciate the documentary and oral evidence in right perspective and result