IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL ON THE 2^nd OF NOVEMBER, 2022 FIRST APPEAL No. 409 of 1997 Between:-

1. THE STATE OF M.P. THR. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPTT. GOVT. OF M.P., VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. THE NAIB TAHSILDAR (NAZUL), BHOPAL, M.P.

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI MUKUND AGRAWAL-GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

AND

1. PREMKUMAR WADHWANI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O MOHANLAL WADHWANI, R/O 53-

A, IDGAH HILLS, BHOPAL, M.P.

2. MANOJ KUMAR WADHWANI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O MOHANLAL WADHWANI, R/O 38-

A, IDGAH HILLS, BHOPAL, M.P.

3. RAJVEER SINGH AHLUWALIA, AGED ABOUT

40 YEARS, S/O. PRATAP SINGH AHLUWALIA, R/O. SHALIMAR LAKE, RIDGE ROAD, IDGAH HILLS, BHOPAL, M.P.

4. SALIM PARVEJ, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O AHMAD, R/O. 7-CLASSIC APARTMENT RIDGE ROAD, BHOPAL, M.P.

5. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THR.

COMMISSIONER, BHOPAL, M.P.

.....RESPONDENTS (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

JUDGMENT

This first appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants 1-2/State Government challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.04.1997 passed by 1^st Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit no.10-A/1996, whereby suit filed by the respondents 1-4/plaintiffs has been decreed holding the notice dated 02.04.1996 to be illegal and that the defendants have no right to make any interference in the construction activities being carried out by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, permanent injunction has also been granted against the defendants.

2. In short the facts are that the plaintiffs claimed themselves to be owner and in possession of the disputed land total area 15700 sq.ft. bearing in khasra no.26, opposite Neelkanth Colony, ward no.9, Idgah Hills, Bhopal allegedly purchased by them from one Gulshan-E-Gandhi Housing Co-operative Society, Bhopal through four registered sale deeds. It is alleged in the plaint that Nazul Officer, Bhopal also granted no objection certificate in respect of the aforesaid land and before granting NOC, the Nazul Officer made all the legal enquiry as to whether the land belonged to the Government or not and ultimately the Nazul Officer, Bhopal issued NOC declaring that the land does not belong to the Government and it is a private property. It is also alleged that after purchase of the land, all the plaintiffs sought permission of raising construction from the defendant 3-Municipal Corporation, which was duly granted by it and after getting the permission, the plaintiffs raised construction of boundary wall around the plot. Thereafter, without any authority, a notice dated 02.04.1996 was issued and Nazul Inspector threatened the plaintiffs to stop the construction work, which constrained the plaintiffs to file the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

3. The defendants 1-2 appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint allegations. In para 1 of the written statement, ownership of the plaintiffs as well as of their predecessor-in-title, was specifically denied. It is contended that the permission of raising construction granted by the defendant 3, does not confer any title on the plaintiffs. It is also contended that the land in question was acquired on 12.11.1955 and it is Government land. On inter alia contentions the suit was prayed to be dismissed.

4. Respondent 3-Municipal Corporation also filed written statement admitting the factum of granting permission of raising construction, but contended that due to raising of objection by the State Government, the permission has been stayed and no construction is being done on the land in question. On inter alia contentions the suit was prayed to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of pleadings learned trial court framed seven issues and recorded evidence of the parties and after consideration of the negative evidence, decreed the suit to the effect that the no