JUDGMENT :

1. This First Appeal under section 96 of Civil Procedure Code has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 25-10-1996 passed by 1st Additional Judge to the Court of Distt. Judge, Bhopal in C.S.No. 4-A/1980 by which the suit filed by the plaintiffs/Appellants has been dismissed.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal in short are that the plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction pleading inter alia that plaintiff No. 1 Gopaldas Bharti and Gurubaksh Singh purchased Kh.No. 459/1 and 460 total area 0.48 acres situated in Tallaiya Gurubaksh Nav Bahar, Sabji Mandi, Bhopal by registered sale deed dated 6-12-1958. On 23-12-1996, Gurubaksh Singh alienated his share to plaintiff No. 2 Kishanlal and Tara Singh by registered sale deed. The land in dispute is in possession of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the State Govt. started proceedings for acquisition of land and ultimately an acquisition award was passed. The land was acquired for the purposes of construction of Sabji Mandi. However, no notice was given to Gopal Das, Gurubaksh Singh, Tara Singh and Kishanlal as per section 9 of Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, Gopal Das challenged the validity of notification issued under section 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act before the High Court by filing W.P.No. 381/1979 which was dismissed by High Court by order dated 10-8-1979. Thereafter, Gopal Das filed S.L.P. before Supreme Court, which too was dismissed. However, the Supreme Court observed that although no question of law is involved, but the respondents may reconsider the case of Gopaldas. Although the land was acquired for establishing a Sabji Mandi but on 28-8-1979, a notice was published for auction of the land including the land in dispute. It was claimed that the defendant has no right or title to acquire the disputed land. The disputed land is in possession of the plaintiffs and the land cannot be auctioned contrary to the purposes for it was acquired. Accordingly suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

3. The defendants No. 1 and 2 filed their written statement and claimed that the plaintiffs are not the owner of the land in dispute. Acquisition proceedings were initiated against the erstwhile owner and accordingly, notification was issued on 25-3-1964 which was published in official gazette on 3-4-1964. There was no need to issue separate notice to the plaintiffs. The award was passed on 11-2-1966 whereas the sale deed in favour of plaintiffs was executed on 23-12-1996, i.e., much after the award was passed. Therefore, no right or title got transferred to the plaintiffs. The Writ Petition has already been dismissed by High Court and Supreme Court.

4. The defendant No. 3 did not file any written statement.

5. The trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

6. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, it is submitted by the Counsel for the Appellants that they are the owners of the land in dispute by virtue of sale deed dated 6-12-1958 executed by Abdul Rehman. Gurubax Singh had already sold his share to Appellant No. 1 Kishanlal and Appellant No. 3 Tara Singh. The trial Court wrongly held that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the land in dispute. The trial Court also erred in law by holding that the dismissal of writ petition and S.L.P. by High Court and Supreme Court respectively would amount to res-judicata. It is further submitted that since land has been auctioned for a purpose different from the purpose for which it was acquired, therefore, the acquisition proceedings should have been quashed.

7. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants.

8. It is the case of the Appellants that the land was acquired for the establishment of Sabji Mandi, however, the same is being used for another purpose, therefore, the land should be returned back by denotifying from the acquisition.

9. The only question for con