IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI ON THE 7^th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 MISC. PETITION No. 3885 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

1. FOREST MANDAL SINGRAULI THROUGH SUB MANDAL OFFICER BAIDHAN THROUGH SMT. SHILPI JAISWAL W/O VISHNU SHANKAR GUPTA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SINGRAULI THROUGH R/O FOREST ZONE OFFICER ZONE MADA OFFICE BILAUJI TELIYAN (IN FRONT OF MPEB OFFICE) TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. FOREST ZONE OFFICER ZONE MADA, DISTRICT SINGRAULI THROUGH SMT. SHILPI JAISWAL, W/O VISHNU SHANKAR GUPTA FOREST ZONE OFFICER, ZONE MADA, OFFICE BILAUJI TELIYAN, (IN FRONT OF MPEB OFFICE) TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY MS. SANJANA SAHNI - ADVOCATE)

AND SMT. SURPAT SINGH W/O RANJEET SINGH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O GRAM AMILIYA, TEHSIL MADA DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 05.08.2022 (Annexure-P/7) passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 49/2021 by the IIIrd Additional Judge Singrauli, Head Quarters Baidhan, District Singrauli affirming the order dated 07.09.2021 (Annexure-P/6) passed by the learned trial Court whereby the application filed by the plaintiff's/respondent under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed and the petitioners/defendants are restrained from interfering with the possession over the suit land, to refrain from carrying out any construction thereupon and to refrain them from interference with the plaintiff's usage of the suit land.

Necessary facts for adjudication of this case are that the plaintiff had purchased the suit land for sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of registered sale deed and is in possession thereof. The suit land is situated to the north of MPEB office as per Schedule A annexed to the plaint. It is further alleged in plaint that the said land belonged to one Harinath over which the defendants have forcefully constructed their office and in respect of which civil suit is pending in which the plaintiff is not a party. On the strength of the above, the defendants are inclined to forcefully take possession of the suit land.

On 25.11.2016, the plaintiff got the revenue map altered vide order dated

30.05.2017 in Revenue Case No. 187/A-3/2016-17 passed by the Tehsildar, Singrauli in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff got demarcation of the suit land on 23.03.2018 whereof the persons belonging to the forest department orally objected. Thereafter, the defendants created interference over the plaintiff's usage of the suit land. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction along with application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C.

The reply was filed by the petitioners/defendants to the application opposing the relief claimed. In the reply, it was stated that the plaintiff is not in possession over the suit land and the defendants are in possession since the year 1965 in form of their office constructed thereupon. Vide order dated 07.09.2021, the trial Court while deciding the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 held that on perusal of the plaint averments and the documents, it is seen that the plaintiff had purchased the suit land vide registered sale deed. Thereafter, the demarcation was got done. Prima facie it appears that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury if no temporary injunction is granted. The aforesaid order was confirmed by the Appellate Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Appellate Court has given a finding with respect to the title and possession of the plaintiff's land and affirmed the order passed by the trial Court. The trial Court ou