JUDGMENT

1. This first appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants 1-2/State Government challenging the judgment and decree dated 7.4.1997 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.10-A/1996, whereby suit filed by the respondents 1-4/plaintiffs has been decreed holding the notice dated 2.4.1996 to be illegal and that the defendants have no right to make any interference in the construction activities being carried out by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, permanent injunction has also been granted against the defendants.

2. In short the facts are that the plaintiffs claimed themselves to be owner and in possession of the disputed land total area 15700 sq.ft. bearing in khasra No.26, opposite Neelkanth Colony, ward No.9, Idgah Hills, Bhopal allegedly purchased by them from one Gulshan-E-Gandhi Housing Co-operative Society, Bhopal through four registered sale deeds. It is alleged in the plaint that Nazul Officer, Bhopal also granted no objection certificate in respect of the aforesaid land and before granting NOC, the Nazul Officer made all the legal enquiry as to whether the land belonged to the Government or not and ultimately the Nazul Officer, Bhopal issued NOC declaring that the land does not belong to the Government and it is a private property. It is also alleged that after purchase of the land, all the plaintiffs sought permission of raising construction from the defendant 3-Municipal Corporation, which was duly granted by it and after getting the permission, the plaintiffs raised construction of boundary wall around the plot. Thereafter, without any authority, a notice dated 2.4.1996 was issued and Nazul Inspector threatened the plaintiffs to stop the construction work, which constrained the plaintiffs to file the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

3. The defendants 1-2 appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint allegations. In para 1 of the written statement, ownership of the plaintiffs as well as of their predecessor-in-title, was specifically denied. It is contended that the permission of raising construction granted by the defendant 3, does not confer any title on the plaintiffs. It is also contended that the land in question was acquired on 12.11.1955 and it is Government land. On inter alia contentions the suit was prayed to be dismissed.

4. Respondent 3-Municipal Corporation also filed written statement admitting the factum of granting permission of raising construction, but contended that due to raising of objection by the State Government, the permission has been stayed and no construction is being done on the land in question. On inter alia contentions the suit was prayed to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of pleadings learned trial Court framed seven issues and recorded evidence of the parties and after consideration of the negative evidence, decreed the suit to the effect that the notice issued by defendants 1-2 is illegal and the defendants have no right to make any interference in raising of the construction over the land in question by the plaintiffs.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants/State submits that the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court are not sustainable because despite there being clear dispute about title, the plaintiffs neither sought any declaration of title nor have chosen to prove the title. He submits that no document showing the title of their predecessor, has been produced on record and the NOC granted by Nazul Officer or the permission of construction granted by the defendant 3- Municipal Corporation, does not confer any title to the plaintiffs. He further submits that in view of the fact that the land was acquired in the year 1955, the suit itself was not maintainable. With these submissions, he prayed for allowing the appeal.

7. In the instant first appeal, despite service of notice on the respondents and despite issuance of SPC vide order dated 8.12.2021, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

8. In the inst