The requirement of compulsory registration for the sale of land for consideration of more than Rs.100.00 and the inability to claim ownership and adverse possession simultaneously.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard on the question of admission.

2. This first appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 20/12/2017 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge to the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Bhopal, in civil suit no.193-A/09, whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of a piece of land admeasuring 3200 sq.ft, bearing in khasra no.902 total area 13.97 acre situated in ward no.43, Bhopal, has been dismissed.

3. In short, the facts are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with the allegations that the owner of disputed land namely Chunnilal had sold it to the plaintiff on 10/1/1984 after receiving consideration of sale of Rs.20, 000.00 which was purchased by ancestor of Chunnilal namely Dulichand in the year 1956 vide sale deed dtd. 27/2/1956 and 2/3/1956 respectively and his title was confirmed upto the High Court. It is alleged that the respondent 1 had not executed the sale deed but assured him to execute the sale deed by way of decree of the Court. It is alleged that the plaintiff is doing business on the disputed land (3200 sq.ft.) and the defendant 1 on 15/7/1985 tried to dispossess the plaintiff, whereas plaintiff being in possession for a long period, is also paying house tax from the year 2002-03 and has also obtained electricity connection as well as permission from the District Industries Center. It is also alleged that the defendant 1 in lieu of acquisition of the disputed land, made demand for alternative land, in pursuance of which, the spot was inspected and the plaintiff was found in possession for 10-15 years. It is also alleged that treating the plaintiff to be encroacher, dispossession proceedings were started in the year 2007. Accordingly, claiming himself to be in possession, the plaintiff prayed for decree in his favour on the basis of adverse possession.

4. The defendant 1 appeared and filed written statement contending therein that his ancestors purchased the property in the year 1956 and in the civil suit filed against the defendant-State the property was declared of the ownership of defendants 1-4 and the appeal preferred by the State was dismissed on 21/7/1979. It is also contended that in the year 1981- 82 the State Government under Gandi Basti Unmoolan Scheme transferred the land to the Mandal and he has never transferred the land to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.20, 000.00 and no rights have accrued to the plaintiff on the basis of adverse possession. It is specifically contended that the State Government has acquired 25, 832 sq.ft. land without payment of compensation in respect of which, the claim is pending before the competent Authority and against such illegal acquisition, writ petition was filed before the High Court and in pursuance of the order passed in the petition, the matter is pending before the competent Authority. It has specifically been contended that after acquisition of the land, the same is recorded in the name of Government.

5. The defendant 5 also filed written statement claiming himself to be tenant over the land in question received by his father Suraj vide rent note dtd. 1/12/1985. Accordingly, claiming himself to be in possession, the suit was prayed to be dismissed.

6. The defendant 6/State also appeared and filed written statement contending that the land in question belongs to the State Government and the plaintiff is just an encroacher, regarding which he has already been issued notice by the State Government for dispossession. With these contentions, the suit was prayed to be dismissed.

7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed issues and recorded evidence of the parties and after due consideration of the same dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dtd. 20/12/2017.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial Court without deciding