IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA th ON THE 10 OF MAY, 2023 MISC. PETITION No. 2074 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

KHALAK SINGH@ SURAJ SINGH S/O BHAWANI SINGH JEE, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL R/O OLD NO 138 NEW NO 124 KRAMANK 146 TIKAMGARH DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR TIWARI - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. MADHUKAR SHAH JOODEV S/O LATE DEVENDRA SINGH JOODEV, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O TIKAMGARH DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR TIKAMGARH DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER SUB DIVISION OFFICE TIKAMGARH DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. TEHSILDAR TEHSIL TIKAMGARH DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. THE NAZUL OFFICER NAZUL OFFICE TIKAMGARH DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION TIKAMGARH DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the Signature Not Verified following:

ORDER

This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed against the order dated 13.01.2023 passed by Fifth District Jude, Tikamgarh in MCA No.42/2018 and the order dated 16.08.2018 passed by Sixth Civil Judge, Class-II, Tikamgarh in Civil Suit No.40-A/2018.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a civil suit for declaration of the title and permanent injunction on the ground that he is in possession of the property in dispute for the last 100 years and, therefore, he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction because the Municipal Corporation has issued notices for taking action as per the provisions of Municipal Corporation Act.

3. By the order dated 16.08.2018 the trial court rejected his application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which too has been dismissed by order dated 13.01.2023 passed by Fifth Additional District Jude, Tikamgarh in MCA No.42/2018.

5. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below have failed to see that the petitioner is in possession of the property in dispute and he cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law. However, he has fairly conceded that the Municipal Corporation has initiated the proceedings against him under section 319 of M.P.Municipalities Act.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that he has perfected his title because he is in possession of the property in dispute for the last 100 years. The petitioner Signature Not Verified has filed a copy of tax receipt dated 03.01.2018, the property tax receipt of the year 2017-2018 and the record of the Municipal Corporation of the year 2017-

2018 and submitted that he is in possession of the land in dispute.

8. So far as the receipt of deposit of property tax is concerned, it will not confer any title on the petitioner. So far as the record of the Municipal Corporation is concerned, the petitioner has filed a copy of the register of property tax in which it is mentioned that the petitioner has deposited the property tax on 03.01.2018.

9. Register filed by petitioner is not a document to show that the petitioner has been recorded as an Owner in the record of the Municipal Corporation. On the contrary, it is clear that property tax was paid for the first time in the year 2018. The petitioner has filed the documents just to show that in the year 2018, he was in possession of the property in dispute.

10. By the aforesaid three documents, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner is in possession of the property in dispute for the last 100 years. As per section 41 of Specific Relief Act, the Municipal Corporation cannot be restrained from proceeding against the petitioner,