JUDGMENT

1. Heard on I.A.No.1950/2023, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC.

2. This application has been filed by Laxmi Naryan Dangi seeking his impleadment as respondent on the ground that he is in possession of the land in dispute for the last 40 years.

3. The application at this stage is not maintainable as he neither applied before the Trial court nor before the First Appellate Court for his impleadment.

4. Furthermore the question in the present case is as to whether the acquisition of the land was completed or not?

5. Accordingly, I.A.No.1950/2023 is hereby rejected.

6. Heard on admission.

7. This second appeal, under section 100 of CPC, has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.8.2014 passed by 16th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Appeal No.93/2013, arising out of judgment and decree dated 7.2.2013 passed by Second Additional Civil Judge, Class-I to the Court of First Civil Judge, Class-I, Bhopal in RCS No.1423-A/2012.

8. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in short, are that the plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Khasra No.16/2, area 1.28 hectares out of 2.40 hectares, situated in Village 4 S.A.No.948/2014 Singarcholi, Tahsil Huzoor, District Bhopal is the disputed property. The said land was in the name of Babulal, which was declared as surplus land under section 10(3) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. A notice under section 10 (5) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act was issued on 24.04.1995 with a direction to appear and handover the possession to the State Government, but on the said date, no action was taken. Even the said notice was not served on Babulal, but was served on Prem Narayan. The plaintiffs are the legal representatives of Babulal. Later on, the possession panchanama was prepared, which does not contain the signatures of plaintiffs. On the basis of forged possession panchanama, the name of Babulal has been deleted from the revenue record and accordingly the suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

9. The defendants filed their written statements and submitted that after the land was declared as surplus under section 10(3) of Urban Land Ceiling Act, notice under section 10(5) of Urban Land Ceiling Act was issued, which was duly served on Prem Narayan, who is the son of Babulal. The possession of the surplus land has been taken on 6.1.1998 and a possession panchanama was also prepared and from thereafter the land is recorded in the name of defendants.

10. The trial court, after framing issues and recording evidence, decreed the suit.

11. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the respondents/State preferred an appeal, which has been allowed by the impugned order.

12. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the Court below failed to see that the appellants are still in possession of the land in dispute. After the repeal of Urban Land Ceiling & Regulation Act, the appellants have become the owner of the land in dispute because possession was not taken in accordance with law.

13. To buttress his contentions, the counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Patel v. State of M.P. and another, decided on 8.8.2013 in W.P.No.1855/2005, Thamman Chand Koshta v. State of M.P. and others reported in 2016(2) MPLJ 623, Dattatrey Rao Kale v. State of M.P. and others, decided on 12.2.2019 in W.P.No.1426/2011 and Amar Chand Vs. State of M.P. and others decided on 3.4.2019 in W.P.No.20905/2018 and proposed the following substantial questions of law :-

“I. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court justified reversing the well reasoned finding of the Trial Court?

II. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is perverse and contrary to the material availa