IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA th ON THE 10 OF MAY, 2024 SECOND APPEAL No. 3493 of 2019 BETWEEN:-

CHATURBHUJ VISHWAKARMA S/O BADLI VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O VILLAGE GHOOGSI, TAHSIL NIWADI, DISTRICT TIKAMGARH, M.P.

(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI S.S. THAKUR - ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT)

AND

1. GRAM PANCHAYAT GHOOGSI THROUGH SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT GHOOGSI TAHSIL NIWADI, DISTRICT TIKAMGARH, M.P.

(MADHYA PRADESH)

2. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. COLLECTOR DISTT-TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI RAMJI PATEL - PANEL LAWYER FOR STATE)

This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Heard.

2. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the suit was filed on the ground that sanction to construct the road in Government land Survey No.645 admeasuring 0.640 hectare was granted but by constructing a road on that land the agricultural land of Village Sarpanch Sona Devi was being affected, hence, instead of constructing the road on that land encroaching upon the Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ plaintiff's land Survey No.844, the road is being constructed and by that encroached 200x20 ft. land of plaintiff's agricultural land.

3. Before the trial Court proceeding and pleadings of the Suit No.8A/2008 were exhibited and proved decree and Judgment. Suit No.8A/2008 marked as Ex.P-42 and 43 the trial Court per the judgment dated 04.12.2013 it was concluded that only on 0.005 hectare area of the disputed land the road was constructed and the trial Court by previous judgment dismissed the suit with direction that the plaintiff may file appropriate application for compensation regarding the encroached land and the previous suit was also dismissed on the ground that the notice under Section 80 of the CPC was not served upon the State. On the above observation, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court being barred by the provisions of Section 11 of the CPC (principles of res judicata).

4. First appellate Court has considered the above facts and dismissed the first appeal.

5. Thus learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any perversity or misinterpretation of the law and accepted the factual point that nothing has been disputed.

6. Learned counsel for appellant failed to demonstrative that the suit is not barred by the res judicata, hence, the appeal sans merit and without admitting, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

7. With the copy of the order, the record of the trial Court and First Appellate Court be returned back.

8. Record of this appeal be consigned to Record Room.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)

JUDGE DPS Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ