Smt. Renu Jain vs Through Sarpanch and Another

Rohit Arya, J.—Heard on admission. The instant appeal is directed against the concurring judgment and decree dated 26th July, 2013 delivered in Civil Appeal No. 27-A/2012 by District Judge, Ashoknagar, District Ashoknagar confirming the judgment an decree dated 11/04/2012 delivered in Civil Suit No. 106-A/11 by Second Civil Judge, Class-I, Ashoknagar.

Facts shorn of necessary details are that the appellant/plaintiff was appointed as Aanganwadi Worker in year 1999 in village Jajankhedi and since she did not have accommodation in the said village, the Gram Panchayat Piproda, passed a resolution on 15/08/2002 to provide the suit premises to the appellant/plaintiff for her residence and to run Aanganwadi Centre. The suit premises was in dilapidated condition and the same was required to be repaired by the appellant/plaintiff herself. According to the appellant she has become the owner of the house under the policy of the State Government and she has taken electric connection in the name of her husband. Since the respondent-Gram Panchayat sought to evict her from the suit premises in view of the fact that now Aanganwadi Centre has been established at different place in the same village, the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction against the Gram Panchayat. Respondent-Gram Panchayat in the written statement stated that the suit premises has been used as primary school in the part and it is a Government property. As Aanganwadi Centre was not established earlier in the village, the Gram Panchayat vide its resolution dated 15/8/2002 (Ex. P/1) had given the suit premises to the appellant/plaintiff for residence and for running the Aanganwadi Centre till the alternative arrangement is made. On 9/3/2010 (Ex. D/7), the Gram Panchayat, Piproda passed a resolution that in view of the fact that new Aanganwadi Centre has been established, the suit premises be got vacated from the appellant/plaintiff. The correspondence in this behalf was also made to the other local and State administrative authorities and the eviction process has also been started with due observance of procedure established by law. Learned trial Court with due advertence to pleadings of the parties and oral & documentary evidence on record, recorded a finding that the appellant/plaintiffs claim for title and possession are not supported by any evidence and therefore, she is not entitled for decree prayed for hence, the suit was dismissed.

Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant/plaintiff preferred a Civil Appeal. The First Appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree has dismissed the appeal concurring with the findings of the trial Court.

Both the Courts have rightly held that there is no documentary evidence on record to demonstrate and establish title of the appellant/plaintiff over the suit premises. As a matter of fact, the suit premises was given to the appellant/plaintiff for residence and running Aanganwadi Centre. The resolution of the Gram Panchayat, Piproda dated 15/08/2002 (Ex P/1) does not at all speak of any transfer of title to the appellant/plaintiff. The suit premises is a Government property where a primary school has been run in the past. There is no instrument on record suggesting transfer of suit premises in the name of the appellant/plaintiff. Mere obtaining of electric connection in the suit premises in the name of appellant/plaintiffs husband shall not confer any title upon the appellant/plaintiff. The resolution of the Gram Panchayat, dated 9/3/2010 (Ex. D/7) was passed for evicting the appellant/plaintiff for the reason that new Aanganwadi Centre has been established at different place. Besides, the eviction notice sent to the appellant/plaintiff, copy of the same were also sent to Project Officer, Child Project, Isagarh (Ex. DAS), Block Development Officer, Isagarh, Project Officer, Women and Child Development Project, Isagarh (Ex. D/1), Superintendent of Police (Ex. D/3) and Collector (Ex. D/4). Further District Women and Child Development Officer, Ashoknagar has also written a letter (Ex. D/5) to Project Officer, Isagarh for getting the suit premises vacated.

Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) Rame Gowda (D) by Lrs. Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs. and Another, ,

(ii) R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and Another, &

(iii) Pooran Vs. Shakuntala and another, 2003 (II) MPJR SN 11.

Judgments cited are quite distinguishable as in the present case the suit premises was allotted to the appellant/plaintiff for residence and running of the Aanganwadi Centre till the alternative arrangement of new Aanganwadi Centre is made. No title or right was conferred upon her to continue to hold the suit premises with ownership rights. Moreover, it has been held in para 14 of the impugned judgment, the appellant is not to be evicted forcibly but in accordance with law. This Court while not interfering with concurring finding of Courts below, observe that eviction proceedings, if any, initiated against the appellant shall be in accordance with the procedure established by law. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any question of law much less substantial question of law involved in the instant appeal for interference u/s 100 of CPC and it is therefore, dismissed.