Chhotelal Shukla And Others vs State Of M.P. And Others

Appellants were defendant No.3 to 6 before the trial Court and they had filed a counter claim in the civil suit. The counter claim of the appellants

was dismissed by the trial Court. Thereafter, they had preferred an appeal before the appellate Court bearing No.63A/14. Appellate Court has

affirmed the finding of the trial Court and had dismissed the appeal.

Learned trial Court as well as appellate Court has found that there is no illegality in the order passed by Tehsildar dated 16.05.1967. Patta has

validly been allotted to respondent No.1 and 2 by Tehsildar. Appellants who were defendants No.3 to 6 before the trial Court has stated that suit land

were under possession of Thakurdeen and their father. Due to long possession Thakurdeen has earned the interest over half part of suit land and over

half of suit land Parasnath was having interest. There was possession of Thakurdeen, Chhotelal, Parasnath and Ramkhelawan over the suit property.

Defendant No.6 Surendra Prasad Shukla and defendant No.3 to 5 has stated that land in question is reserved forest land and settlement dated

16.05.1967 is illegal. Appellate Court has specifically held that there is circular of the State Government of Revenue Department dated 03.10.2012

which lays down that such lands over which Revenue Department has granted lease before 05.10.1980 then such lease holders will not be

dispossessed from their land and therefore respondent No.1 and 2 could not be dispossessed and lease which has been granted in favour of

respondent No.1 and 2 is legal. Though, defendants/appellants had made pleading that they are owner of the half of the land in question and thus

entitled to get half compensation amount. But appellants â€" defendant Nos.3 to 6 was unable to prove that defendant No.3 to 6 got interest over the

land in question. They were unable to show any document of title in their favour. Respondent No.1 and 2 has filed settlement order of Tehsildar dated

16.05.1967.

In view of above, the counter claim and appeal which has been filed by appellant was dismissed by the trial Court as well as appellate Court.

Appellants in this second appeal has raised following substantial questions of law before this Court:

(i) Whether allotment order dated 16.05.67 passed by Tehsildar Singrauli in favour of respondent No.3 to 4 is illegal and void ?

Such substantial question of law does not arise in this appeal and same has already been answered in S.A. No.1377/2016.

Other proposed substantial questions are as under:-

(ii) Whether allotment of government land cannot be made in favour of minor ?

(iii) Whether allotment of government land can be made in favour of persons who are not landless persons ?

(iv) Whether suit filed by respondent No.1 and 2 was well within limitation.

Appellants has not raised any question nor challenged settlement of land dated 16.05.67 in favour of respondent No.1 and 2. They had not filed any

suit challenging the settlement. They filed suit for grant of compensation only when the State Government has filed a suit challenging the order of

settlement by Tehsildar dated 16.05.67. The counter claim filed by present appellants and defendant No.3 to 6 is barred under the Limitation Act. It

has been held in S.A. No.1377/2016 suit filed by respondent No.1 and 2 was not within limitation and same was barred. In view of same proposed

substantial questions of law No. (ii) (iii) and (iv) does not arise.

(vii) Whether Court below have committed an error in ignoring Ex.D-11 Khasra of year 1956-57 to 1960-61 and same has resulted into miscarriage of

justice ?

Entries made in favour of Late Shri Thakurdeen of year 1956-57 to 1960-61 has been cancelled by the order of Collector, therefore, no benefit could

be given to the appellants to the said documents. No other evidence has been produced by the appellants to show that they had earned interest over

Khasra No.1730.

In view of aforesaid discussion, appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed.