##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF nd ON THE 22 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 SECOND APPEAL No. 31 of 2004 VISHNU Versus SARPANCH GRAM PANCHAYAT AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Harish Joshi - Advocate for appellant.

Shri Anshul Rajpurohit - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No. 3 / State.

RESERVED ON : 20/08/2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 22/09/2026 ORDER

1. This Second Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff u/S.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 7.10.2003 passed by V Addl. District Judge, Ujjain in Civil First Appeal No.26A/03, by which the judgment and decree dated 7.5.2003 passed by the Civil Judge, Class- II, Badnagar, Distt. Ujjain in Civil Suit No.114A/97 has been reversed and the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant - plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "plaintiff") has filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the respondents-defendants(hereinafter referred to as "defendant") seeking decree of declaration and perpetual injunction by restraining the respondents from dispossessing the plaintiff illegally and interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land admeasuring 20 x 30 feet situated in village Gram Kharsodkala, Tehsil Badnagar, District Ujjain and the house constructed there upon.

3. The plaintiff pleaded in the suit that in village Kharsodkala, Tehsil Badnagar, District Ujjain House Admeasuring 20 x 30 feet is owned and possessed by the plaintiff, wherein the plaintiff is doing the business of lath machine, welding machine and compressor. The house was constructed by the plaintiff upon the land provided by the Administrator of Gram Panchayat of Kharsodkala to the plaintiff for installing a temporary gumti and thereafter the land was provided on perpetual lease to the plaintiff and the plaintiff after obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat constructed the RCC shop and started welding shop.

4. From 1985-86 to 1991-92 the lease rent was Rs.1385/- and thereafter on

25.12.1993 the land was provided to the plaintiff on perpetual lease upon the application submitted by the plaintiff, however, the defendant No.2 Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat and defendant No.3 Secretary, Gram Panchayat are trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and house illegally and visited the spot on 28.2.1997 with labourers for the purpose of demolishing the shop, and informed to the plaintiff that the Collector has issued direction for demolition on the ground that the plaintiff has encroached on the land and constructed the house, therefore, the plaintiff filed the subject suit seeking decree of declaration and perpetual injunction.

5. The defendant No.1 remained ex-parte. Defendant No.2 and 3 filed the written statement and denied the plaint allegations and stated that the land was provided to the plaintiff by gram panchayat on temporary lease for the purpose of installing the temporary gumti on 24.10.1986 with a condition that whenever the gram panchayat will ask to vacate the land, the plaintiff will handover the vacant possession of the land to the gram panchayat and the land was not provided on perpetual lease to the plaintiff. It is further pleaded in the written statement that the Administrator had no authority to provide the land on lease.

6. Defendants No.2 and 3 further pleaded that the plaintiff has illegally constructed RCC house on the land, which amounts to encroachment. The notice was issued to the plaintiff on 26.4.1997, by which the plaintiff was intimated to remove the structure from the land and handover the possession of the land, however, plaintiff did not comply with the notice. The gram panchayat passed a Resolution on 28.10.1997 and cancelled the lease of the plaintiff and passed a Resolution to remove the structure of the plaintiff. At the same time Resolution was passed to cancel the certificate issued by the Adminis