Shobhnath Sahu vs Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Situlkhurd

K.K. Trivedi, J.—This is a second appeal u/s 100 of the CPC by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2008 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 13-A/2008 by the Additional District Judge, Waidhan, district Sidhi arising out of judgment and decree dated 27.6.2008 passed in Civil Suit No. 49-A/2006 by the First Civil Judge Class II, Waidhan, district Sidhi. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction regarding the suit land of certain revenue survey situated in Village Naudhiya, Tehsil Singraul, district Sidhi against the respondents contending inter alia that the appellant being a landless person taken over the possession of certain baron land of the State Government and made it cultivable. The respondent/Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat was having no title over the said land, but stating that the land in suit was given to the Panchayat for the purposes of construction of a pond, tried to dispossess the appellant. Such an act of the respondents was bad in law and against the procedure of law, the appellant was not to be dispossessed.

The suit was contested by the respondents/defendants on the ground that appellant was not a landless person and in fact he was a resident of village Kulhai, Tehsil Singrauli, where he was having 15 to 20 acres of land. He never made the baron land of the State Government in the impugned survey numbers cultivable. He was not having possession over the said land. The land was never settled in the name of the appellant. Therefore, when the State Government made a scheme for providing employment in the rural area, a scheme to make a pond within the village was sanctioned and for the said purposes the government land was allocated. The action to construct pond was started and such a construction has been completed on 15th June, 2006. Since the appellant was not having any possession over the land in suit, the claim was liable to be dismissed.

The trial court, after framing of the issues, recorded the evidence and decreed the suit of the appellant. The appeal was preferred by the respondent No. 1 before the lower appellate court and since the appeal has been allowed, this second appeal is required to be filed.

It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that if the evidence is properly examined, the appellant/plaintiff has categorically proved that he was in possession of the land, his name was recorded as a possession holder in the revenue records and, therefore, he could not have been dispossessed in the manner he has been. For the said purposes, the injunction was rightly granted by the civil court.

The documentary evidence produced in this respect and the oral evidence of appellant is examined. He has simply produced certain revenue entries, but in all such revenue records, the ownership of the State Government over the land in dispute is recorded. In some part it is said that appellant has made encroachment. In his court statement, he could not demonstrate as to why he cannot produce the documents to show that the land in suit was in his possession for the last 30 years. If the appellant was claiming any right over the land, he was to demonstrate that he was continuously in hostile possession of the land within the knowledge of the respondent/State for a period of more than 30 years. An encroacher cannot say that he was in possession of the land for more than 30 years. The fact further remains that proceedings were done against the appellant for his removal and, therefore, his possession cannot be said to be hostile or adverse. His status was that of an encroacher. As against this, the respondents have produced the documents to show that the State Government has granted a sanction to start scheme of rural employment guarantee and for the said purposes a reservoir was to be constructed for harvesting of water. The funds were sanctioned for the said purposes. The administrative sanction was granted and thus on the land in suit action was started by the competent authorities of the State. Under the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, the nodal agency to look after such work or to execute the scheme of the State Government is Gram Panchayat. The Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat has not taken any steps on her own. Therefore, it was an act of the State, which was being executed by the Sarpanch. In view of this there was no question of granting a decree of injunction, that too when there was no claim for grant of a decree of title or ownership. Thus, the civil court has wrongly granted a decree of injunction, which has rightly been interfered by the lower appellate court. In view of the aforesaid, there is no substance in the appeal. No error of law is committed by the lower appellate court in setting aside the judgment and decree of the civil court and dismissing the suit of the appellant. No substantial questions of law arises for consideration in this appeal, which fails and is hereby dismissed.