Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6916
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, J
Nagar Parishad Kailaras Thr – Appellant
Versus
M/S Banmore Cements Works Ltd Thr – Respondent
FA 231/2016
Bhupendra Singh Dhakad,
The court ruled that expired mining leases do not confer bhumiswami rights, and ownership claims must be substantiated with original evidence.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 96 - Appeal against decree - The appeal arises from a judgment and decree granting a declaration and permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff regarding disputed land ownership. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove ownership and the trial court's findings were perverse. (Paras 2, 66)
(B) Land Revenue Code - Provisions regarding bhumiswami rights - The court ruled that the plaintiff could not claim bhumiswami rights over land granted for mining purposes, as the lease had expired and the land was not agricultural. (Paras 41, 44)
(C) Evidence Act - Section 90 - The court held that the trial court erred in presuming the correctness of a document based on its age without original evidence. (Paras 38, 66)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of land based on historical leases and transfers, asserting continuous possession. The defendants contended that the leases had expired and the plaintiff was a trespasser. (Paras 3-8)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish ownership or possession of the disputed land, leading to the dismissal of the suit. (Paras 66)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the plaintiff's claims to ownership, the nature of the land, and the applicability of relevant laws. (Paras 10, 66)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the plaintiff's claims were unsupported by evidence, particularly regarding the nature of the land and the expiration of leases, thus reversing the trial court's decision. (Paras 66)
Result: Appeals allowed; the trial court's judgment set aside and the suit dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disputed land ownership (Para 2) |
| 2. historical leases (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. defendant's claims (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. trial court's findings (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 5. court's conclusion (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
| 6. appeals allowed (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69) |
JUDGMENT
(Passed on 30/05/2024)
1. Since, common questions of law and facts are involved in this appeal as well as in F.A. No. 74/2017 therefore, with the consent of parties, the matters are analogously heard and decided finally by this common order. For the purpose of convenience facts mentioned in F.A. No. 231/2016 shall be taken into consideration.
2. This first appeal under section 96 of Civil Procedure Code arises out of judgment and decree dated 14/09/2016 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Sabalgarh, District Morena in Civil Suit No. 03/2013 'A' by which the suit filed by respondent/plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction has been decreed.
3. Briefly stated facts giving rise to filing of this first appeal are that initially the respondent no.1 brought a suit only against the Govt. of M.P., but an application has been filed and appellant of appeal No.74/2017, Nagar Parishad Kailaras has been added as defendant. As per the plaint pleadings, land in dispute bearing Patwari Halka No.19 comprised in Survey No.1021 area 4 bigha 2 biswa, Survey No.1022 area 1 bigha 9 biswa, Survey No.1027 area 2 bigha and 8 biswa, Survey No.1028 area 8 bigha and 10 biswa, Survey No.1030 area 1 bigha, Survey No.1031 area 10 biswa, Survey No.1032 area 1 biswa, Survey No.1033 area 2 biswa, Survey No.76/1 area 15 biswa and Survey No.76/2 area 01 bigha 16 biswa, total Survey no.10 area 20 bigha and 10 biswa ie. total 4700 hectare belonged to predecessor of the plaintiff, the ACC Cement company, who was a lease holder prior to 73 years from the date of suit. About 63 residential quarters, pump house, office, Doordarshan office, Play ground, Entertainment house and other facilities were built over there.
4. The further pleading is that the ACC Cement Morena transferred the assets vide deed dated 30.4.1982 in favour of M/s Makers Development Services Private Limited.
Thereafter in turn on 30.3.1995 by registered sale deed it was transferred in favour of M/s C.R.C. Bhupendra Cement Limited. Now M/s C.R.C. Bhupendra Cement Limited is owner and title holder of the property as described in the plaint. On 23.7.1997 M/s C.R.C. Bhupendra Cement Limited changed its name as M/s Banmore Cement Works Limited. Thus, the assets and property what assigned by registered deed are the property of the plaintiff and plaintiff held the property as an exclusive owner and is also in possession.
5. It has further been submitted that a land having area 632 bigha was granted by lease dated 1.7.1920 by the Scindia State (Ex-ruler) for the period of 30 years for the purpose of Limestone Manufacturing Cement therefrom. Thereafter again the Ex-ruler was pleased to grant a lease dated 26.7.1937 permanently for the consideration of Rs.7,89,000/-. The predecessor of the plaintiff had been in occupation and use of such property as the owner, title holder and nobody had come to interfere in the peaceful possession and occupation of the land as granted by the lease.
6. It has further been submitted that out of 632 bigha 77 hectare land was surrendered to the M.P. State Government and dispute is only over 4.700 hectare of land.
7. It has further been pleaded that after taking the lease for extracting the limestone, the State Government granted patta with the premium so fixed for use of land and the premium has been paid regularly without any default. At present out of 63 residential quarters only 13 quarters are in existence. So also pump house, office of the company, play gr
