Managing Director Corporation Lamta Project, Balaghat vs Bhejanlal (Dead) through LRs

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(MP) 182

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Managing Director Corporation Lamta Project, Balaghat v. Bhejanlal (Dead) through LRs & others
Second Appeal No. 1551 of 2020 (Jabalpur): against the judgment and decree dated 22.2.2020 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Waraseoni, District Balaghat, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 404A/2015; Decided on 2.2.2023

Advocates:
Ms. Pooja Gupta for appellant;
Ms. Papiya Ghosh, Panel Lawyer for respondents.

Headnote:
¼1½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-ç-½ && èkkjk 240 && o`{k dkVs tkuk rFkk uqdlku dh olwyh && oknhx.k dh Òwfe ij [kM+s o`{k && çfroknhx.k }kjk voSèk :i ls dkVs x, && uqdlku dh olwyh rFkk O;kns'k d¢ fy, nkok && [kkfjt && çFke vihy U;k;ky; us okn fMØh fd;k && çFke vihy U;k;ky; dk fu"d"kZ fd oknhx.k dh Òwfe ij [kM+s o`{k çfroknhx.k }kjk dkVs x, && lk{; d¢ ewY;kadu ij vkèkkfjr && d¨Ã foi;Z"krrk ugÈ crkÃ tk ldh && çFke vihy U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh vfÒiq"V && vihy [kkfjtA ¼iSjk 3] 22 ,oa 25
¼2½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && èkkjk 100 && 'kfä dh O;kfIr && çFke vihy U;k;ky; dk rF; dk fu"d"kZ && lk{; d¢ ewY;kadu ij vkèkkfjr && d¨Ã foi;Z"krrk ugÈ crkÃ tk ldh && gLr{ksi ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk tc rd fd og foi;ZLr ugÈ gksa ;k fcuk fdlh lk{; d¢ ugÈ g¨aA ¼iSjk 22
¼3½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && èkkjk 80 && vis{kk && èkkjk 80 d¢ vèkhu lwpuki= dh rkehy g¨us ls lkB fnol dk volku g¨us ds iwoZ okn çLrqr fd;k x;k && lwpuki= dk ewy ç;¨tu jkT; ;k mld¢ d`R;dkfj;¨a d¨ fookn lqy>kus dk volj çnku djuk gS && okn le;iwoZ g¨us dh vkifÙk && fopkj.k U;k;ky; d¢ le{k ugÈ mBkÃ xÃ && tc çfroknhx.k us èkkjk 80 dh vis{kka dk vfèkR;tu dj fn;k rc oknhx.k dk nkok le;iwoZ g¨us d¢ vkèkkj ij [kkfjt ugÈ fd;k tk ldrkA ¼2001½ 1 ,l lh lh 555 rFkk ¼2006½ 12 ,l lh lh 119 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 16 ,oa 19
(1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) -- S. 240 -- cutting of trees and recovery of damage -- trees standing on land of plaintiffs -- illegally cut by defendants -- suit for recovery of damage and injunction -- dismissed -- first appellate Court decreed suit -- finding of first appellate Court that trees standing on land of plaintiffs were cut by defendants -- based on appreciation of evidence -- no perversity could be pointed out -- judgment and decree passed by first appellate Court affirmed -- appeal dismissed. [Paras 3, 22 & 25
(2) Civil P. C., 1908 -- S. 100 -- scope of powers -- finding of fact of first appellate Court -- based on appreciation of evidence -- no perversity could be pointed out -- cannot interfere unless and until they are perverse or are based on no evidence. [Para 22
(3) Civil P. C., 1908 -- S. 80 -- requirement -- suit filed prior to expiry of sixty days from service of notice under section 80 -- basic purpose of notice is to give opportunity to State or its functionaries to resolve dispute -- objection about premature suit -- not raised before trial Court -- once defendants have waived requirement of section 80, plaintiffs cannot be nonsuited on ground of premature suit. (2001) 1 SCC 555 and (2006) 12 SCC 119 referred to. [Paras 16 & 19

JUDGMENT

1. This Second Appeal under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.2.2020 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Waraseoni, District Balaghat (M.P.) in Regular Civil Appeal No.404A/2015 arising out of judgment and decree dated 30.9.2015 passed by First Civil Judge, Class-I, Waraseoni, District Balaghat in Civil Suit No.59-A/2013.

2. The appellant is the defendant.

3. The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of damages caused due to illegal cutting of trees as well as for permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Dalja is the forefather of the plaintiffs. He had Khasra No.33/1 area 1.198 hectares situated in village Lalpur, Tahsil Waraseoni, District Balaghat.

4. The family tree is as under:

		nYtk
	dk:		uk:
rstjke
		Hkstu		dUgS;k

5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Tejram, who represents the family of Karu has alienated a part of Khasra No.33 to Ramdas and the remaining land belongs to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had planted trees and were taking care of the same. About 4-5 months back, the defendants No.4 and 5 insisted for demarcation and accordingly, the plaintiffs filed an application before the Court of Tahsildar, Waraseoni. Information of demarcation was given to the defendant No.3. On 25.02.2013, the other defendants, on the instructions of defendants No.2 to 5, started cutting trees, which were standing on the disputed land. The plaintiffs tried to stop them but the defendants No.4 and 5 assured that till the demarcation is done, the cut wood/trees would be kept in a safe custody. On 12.3.2013, the Revenue Inspector and Patwari carried out the demarcation in the presence of the defendant No.5 and the Forest Guard. The defendant No.5 signed the Demarcation Panchnama with an endorsement that he does not agree with the same. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sent a notice under section 80 of CPC. It was found by the plaintiffs that 34 trees of Saja, 5 trees of Dhawda, 93 trees of Sinhana and 50 trolleys of wood total worth Rs.1 Lakh have been illegally cut by the defendants No.2 to 5 and accordingly, the suit was filed for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/-

6. The defendants No.1 to 5 filed their written statement and claimed that they have not cut the trees, which were standing on Khasra No.33/1. It was the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs themselves have cut the trees. It was pleaded that by notification dated 30.1.1979, Khasra No.1 to 10, 14 to 16, 22, 25, 37, 38 to 49, 70/179 total area 560.56 hectares was declared as forest land. After the notification, the demarcation of the said land was carried out and the plantation was done in the year 2008. Since, the residents of Lalpur and the plaintiffs are in habit of illegal cutting of trees from the forest area, which is being objected by the defendants No.2, 4 and 5 accordingly, the suit has been filed with dishonest intention.

7. The trial Court by framing issues and recording evidence, dismissed the suit.

8. The respondents being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court preferred an appeal, which has been decreed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.2.2020 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.404A/2015.

9. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the findings recorded by the Appellate Court with regard to the fact that the plaintiffs had planted the trees and were lawful owner of the same is false. The State Government was a necessary party in a suit against the public servant for damages or other reliefs. It was further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that since, the suit was filed before expiry of two months from the date of service of notice under section 80 of CPC, t