Ram Prakash vs State of Madhya Pradesh

J.K. Maheshwari, J.—Heard on the question of admission.

This appeal is, by plaintiff/appellant, directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2005 passed by II Additional District Judge, Ashok Nagar (M.P.) in Civil Appeal No. 47A/2004 confirming the findings of the trial court i.e. II Civil Judge Class II, Ashok Nagar passed vide judgment and decree dated 19.07.2004 in Civil Suit No. 25A/2004 by which the suit, filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of title and to declare the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 09.01.1991 as null and void, has been dismissed.

Plaintiff''s case, in brief, was that he is the owner of the land of village Kadesara, Tahsil Isagarh, District Ashok Nagar bearing Survey No. 298 area 0.836 hectare. It is said that the land in question is recorded in the name of the plaintiff and continued to cultivate the land thereafter. It is further said that after cultivation of the said land he is receiving agricultural profit since last 18 to 20 years. It is his contention that as per order dated 09.01.1991 passed by the Tahsildar the said land has been settled in his favour. The Additional Collector in Suo Motu Revision passed the order dated 06.07.1998 setting aside it, which is illegal. Plaintiff is in possession of the land in question, however, prayer is made for declaration of his title and to set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector. It was also prayed that the injunction be issued against the defendant to not to interfere in his possession.

Defendant, by filing the written statement, has denied the plaint averments and stated that the land in question was a government land and the plaintiff encroached thereupon, however, order of removal of encroachment imposing fine was passed. The order of settlement passed by the Tahsildar dated 09.01.1991 has been set aside in Suo Motu Revision vide order dated 06.07.1998 passed by the Additional Collector. In such circumstances, the plaintiff does not acquire any title in the suit property and the order passed by the Collector setting aside the settlement in favour of the plaintiff is in accordance with law.

Learned trial court framed several issues and the suit filed by the plaintiff on the point of limitation as well as on merits was rejected because the plaintiff failed to prove his title on the suit land and the order passed by the Collector in Suo Motu Revision has rightly been passed. The Appellate court also upheld such finding, however, this appeal has been preferred.

Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant has strenuously urged that the trial court dismissed the suit on limitation treating it to be filed by the plaintiff assailing the order of Revenue Officer which falls under Article 100 of the CPC while the present suit has been filed seeking declaration of title and the order of Additional Collector as null and void. In such circumstances, findings to dismiss the suit on the ground of limitation as recorded by the appellate court are unsustainable. It is further his contention that the land in question has been settled by Naib Tahsildar passing an order dated 09.01.1991, however, if the plaintiff acquires the land in question in settlement, therefore, protecting his possession relief as prayed in the suit may be directed.

Per contra, Shri R.P. Rathi, learned Government Advocate, has submitted that the order was passed by the Collector in Suo Motu Revision setting aside the order of settlement passed by the Tahsildar in favour for the plaintiff. The land was belonging to the State Government and the plaintiff was found in possession thereof he has rightly been dispossessed imposing fine. Hence, the plaintiff does not acquire any right, title or interest on the land in question. The suit preferred by the plaintiff has rightly been dismissed on merits as well as on the point of limitation. In such circumstances, present appeal may be dismissed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the land in question was a government land which was settled as per order dated 09.01.1991 by the Tahsildar in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is required to prove his title on the suit land relying upon the order of settlement. The said order of settlement has been cancelled by the Collector taking it in Suo Motu Revision. In the suit, no specific plea regarding limitation to exercise jurisdiction of Suo Motu Revision has been taken by the plaintiff. In addition thereto, if the nature of the land and the title of the plaintiff thereupon is considered, then on a government land without having any right, title or interest by virtue of law, title of the plaintiff cannot be directed. In such circumstances, the title of plaintiff has not been proved in a suit filed by him, however, the relief as prayed by him cannot be directed. As per the documents Annexure D-1 and D-2, the plaintiff was dispossessed imposing fine. In such circumstances the suit for injunction can also not be decreed. In view of the foregoing, the findings of fact recorded by the courts below dismissing the suit on merits are hereby upheld ignoring the finding of dismissal of suit on the point of limitation.

Consequently, this appeal stands dismissed, in limine, because no substantial question of law for determination arises in it.