Back
2016 Supreme(MP) 564
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rohit Arya, J.
State of M.P. and others v. Rajendra Singh and another
Second Appeal No.237 of 2010 (Gwalior); against judgment and decree dated 6.12.2008 passed in Civil Appeal No.2-A of 2007
by Additional District Judge Pichhore, District Shivpuri;
Decided on 21.10.2016.
Ms. Ami Prabal, Deputy Advocate General for appellant/State;
Ajay Singh Raghuvanshi for respondents.
Headnote: ¼1½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 & /kkjk 34 rFkk 38 & ou vf/kfu;e] 1927 & /kkjk 4 & iSr`d laifÙk ds :i esa Ñf"k Hkwfe & vkjf{kr ou Hkwfe ds fo"k; esa e-iz- jkti= esa vf/klwpuk fnukad 30-8-1968 izdkf'kr & ,slh vf/klwpuk esa fookfnr Hkwfe lekfo"V ugha & oknhx.k }kjk gd~ ?kks"k.kk ,oa LFkk;h O;kns'k ds fy, okn & oknhx.k dk LokfeRo vkSj dCtk & nLrkosth ,oa ekSf[kd lk{; ls lkfcr & izfroknhx.k ;g izekf.kr djus esa vlQy jgs fd okn Hkwfe vkjf{kr ou Hkwfe dk Hkkx gS & izfroknhx.k }kjk oknhx.k dk dCtk gksuk Hkh Lohdkj fd;k x;k & fupys U;k;ky;ksa }kjk okn lgh&gh fMØh fd;k x;k & gLr{ksi visf{kr ughaA ¼iSjk 2] 8 ,oa 10
¼2½ ou vf/kfu;e] 1927 & /kkjk 4 & Ñf"k Hkwfe ds :i esa iSr`d laifÙk & vkjf{kr ou Hkwfe ds fo"k; esa e-iz- jkti= esa vf/klwpuk fnukad 30-8-1968 izdkf'kr & ,slh vfèklwpuk esa fookfnr Hkwfe lekfo"V ugha & oknhx.k }kjk gd~ dh ?kks"k.kk ,oa LFkk;h O;kns'k gsrq okn izLrqr fd;k x;k & nLrkosth ,oa ekSf[kd lk{; }kjk lkfcr & izfroknhx.k ;g izekf.kr djus esa vlQy jgs fd okn Hkwfe vkjf{kr ou Hkwfe dk Hkkx gS & izfroknhx.k }kjk oknhx.k dk dCtk gksuk Lohdkj fd;k x;k & fupys U;k;ky;ksa }kjk okn lgh&gh [kkfjt fd;k x;k & gLr{ksi visf{kr ughaA ¼iSjk 2] 8 ,oa 10
¼3½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 100 & 'kfDr;ksa dh O;kfIr & fupys U;k;ky;ksa ds ,d-gh fu"d"kZ & lk{; ds leqfpr ewY;kadu ij vk/kkfjr & f}rh; vihy esa gLr{ksi visf{kr ughaA ¼iSjk 11
(1) Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- Ss.34 and 38 -- Forest Act, 1927 -- S.4 -- agricultural land ancestral property -- Notification dated 30.8.1968 about reserved forest land published in the M.P. Rajpatra -- disputed land not covered in such notification -- State intended to take forcible possession -- suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction -- ownership and possession of plaintiffs -- proved by documentary and oral evidence -- defendants failed to demonstrate that suit land is part of reserved forest land -- possession of plaintiffs also admitted by defendants -- suit rightly decreed by Courts below -- no interference called for.
[Paras 2, 8 & 10
(2) Forest Act, 1927 -- S.4 -- ancestral property as agricultural land -- Notification dated 30.8.1968 about reserved forest land published in M.P. Rajpatra -- disputed land not covered in such notification -- suit filed by plaintiffs for declaration of title and permanent injunction -- proved by documentary and oral evidence -- defendants failed to demonstrate that suit land is part of reserved forest land -- possession of plaintiffs admitted by defendants -- suit rightly decreed by Courts below -- no interference called for. [Paras 2, 8 & 10
(3) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S.100 -- scope of powers -- concurrent findings of facts -- based on proper appreciation of evidence -- no interference called for in second appeal. [Para 11
1. This appeal under section 100 CPC by defendants/State is directed against the confirming judgment and decree dated 6.12.2008 passed in Civil Appeal No.2-A/2007 by Additional District Judge, Pichhore District Shivpuri by which affirmed the judgment and decree dated 21.2.2005 passed in Civil Suit No.118/2003 by Civil Judge, Class-II, Khaniyadana, District Shivpuri. Plaintiffs/respondents suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been decreed.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that the plaintiffs have filed a suit inter alia contending that the suit land; agricultural land falling in survey Nos. 6 area 3.35 hectare, 27 area 0.15 hectare, 28 area 0.14 hectare, 53 area 0.44 hectare, 57 area 1.26 hectare, 75 area 1.77 hectare, 81 area 3.12 hectare, total area 10.23 hectare situated in village Bhudera, Tahsil Khaniyadana, District Shivpuri (for short, 'the suit land') is ancestral property and plaintiffs are in possession thereof and doing cultivation and harvesting crops. As defendants No.1 to 3 intend to take forcible possession purportedly on the ground that the suit land is 'reserved forest land'. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the suit.
3. Defendants filed written statement and denied plaint allegations. It is contended that the suit land is' reserved forest land' as has been declared so in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette vide Notification dated 30.8.1968 (Exhibit
D-1). No objection thereto has been filed by the plaintiffs and, therefore, no suit of the nature for declaration of title and injunction can be entertained. Accordingly, it is prayed that the suit deserves to be dismissed.
4. On the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed the following issues :
Þokn iz'u
fu"d"kZ
¼1½
D;k fookfnr Hkwfe losZ Øekad 6] 27] 28] 53] 57] 81 ,oa 75 dqy jdok 10-23 gsDVs- fLFkr xzke cq<sjk oknhx.k Hkwfe Lokeh gSa \
gkaA
¼2½
D;k oknhx.k dk fookfnr Hkwfe esa dCtk gS \
gkaA
¼3½
D;k fookfnr Hkwfe lu~ 1968 esa ou foHkkx dh ?kksf"kr dh xbZ Fkh \
izekf.kr ughaA
¼4½
D;k oknhx.k dk nkok E;kn esa gSa \
gkaA
¼5½
D;k oknh us U;k; 'kqYd lgh vnk fd;k gS \
gkaA
¼6½
lgk;rk ,oa okn O;; \
okn LohdkjAß
upon critical evaluation of the evidence on record, the suit has been decreed.
5. The trial Court has made relative assessment of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both the parties. Plaintiffs have produced the revenue entries (Exhibit P-1), khasra panchshala (Exhibit P-2) and bhu-adhikar rin pustika (Exhibit P-3) and also lead oral evidence, Naresh Singh (PW1), Deshraj Singh (PW2) and Imrat (PW3) in support of the pleadings that the suit land is recorded as ancestral property and is in possession of the plaintiffs and doing cultivation and harvesting crops. The trial Court while considering the documentary evidence led by the defendants/appellants has concluded that the State Government Gazette Notification dated 30.8.1968 (Exhibit D-1) as regards 'reserved forest land' in relation to village Bhudera does not reflect the khasra numbers of the area as described in paragraph 1 of the judgment. That apart, even the map (Exhibit D-2) filed does not reflect the particulars of the area in respect of which the map has been drawn with khasra numbers, etc., Apart from the aforesaid two documents, no other documentary evidence has been produced by the defendants to claim that the suit land is a reserved forest land. Consequently, the suit has been decreed.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the first appeal at the instance of the defendants/appellants has also suffered dismissal as upon reappreciation of the evidence on
