Umesh Kumar Sharma vs State of M.P. and Others

Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 05.11.1996 passed in Civil Appeal No.17-A/94 ( Ram Charan vs President S.A.D.A .) passed by First Additional District Judge, Tikamgarh to the Court of District Judge, Tikamgarh (M.P.).

The appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether the document (Ex.P-1) is legal and confers valid title on the plaintiffs? 2. Whether the document (Ex.P-1) puts condition and if so the effect of its nonfulfillment?

Respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for delivery of possession. They pleaded that Gram Panchayat Orchha granted lease of a land in favour of their father vide order dated 01.04.1969, area 18 M 29 CM x 5 M 62 CM. On the aforesaid land, the father of the respondents-plaintiffs had erected a fencing. The employees of the appellant-defendant had removed the fencing and they had made a construction on the land. When the respondents-plaintiffs prevented them, the employees of appellant-defendant rejected their prayer. The respondents-plaintiffs pleaded that a decree of possession be passed in their favour.

The appellant-defendant denied the claim of the respondents-plaintiffs. The appellant-defendant pleaded that no lease was granted in favour of the father of the respondents-plaintiffs. Ex.P-1 is not a valid document to grant lease. The father of respondents-plaintiffs had no valid title on the land.

The trial Court dismissed the suit after holding that respondents-plaintiffs failed to prove that in the year of 1969, the suit land was granted to their father on lease.

The appellant-defendant has not made any encroachment on the land.

On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court.

The respondents-plaintiffs in their deposition before the trial Court pleaded that Ramcharan Bajpayee was their father and he was granted patta of the land by the gram pachayat vide order dated 01.04.1969. The land was in the name of their father. Their father deposited an amount of Rs.5/-. After grant of lease, a fencing was erected by their father. That fencing was removed by the employees of the appellant-defendant and they had made encroachment.

PW-3, who was the then Sarpanch of the gram panchayat, deposed that he had given the patta of the land in the year 1969 in favour of Ramcharan Bajpayee. At that time, he was working as Sarpanch of the gram panchayat. Ex.P-1 is the patta. He further admitted the fact that Ex.P-1 is the lease document which was issued by him. In his cross-examination, he admitted the fact that when the patta was granted, Mr. Ramcharan Bajpayee was a Panch of the gram panchayat and he himself prepared the patta Ex.P-1.

Except this evidence, the respondents-plaintiffs had not produced any evidence to support the claim that their father was granted a valid lease. Ex.P-1 is the document which was signed by the Sarpanch of the gram panchayat.

It has not been mentioned in the document that any resolution was passed by the gram panchayat to grant lease-patta of the land in favour of Mr. Ramcharan Bajpayee. It is admitted by the Sarpanch in his deposition that at the relevant time, Mr. Ramcharan Bajpayee was working as Panch of the gram panchayat. The land of the panchayat could not be granted by a person without the resolution of the gram panchayat. The respondents-plaintiffs did not produce the relevant rules before the trial Court which were applicable at the relevant time by which the Sarpanch of the gram panchayat was authorized to grant lease. No proceedings were produced by the respondents-plaintiffs to substantiate that a valid procedure was adopted by the gram panchayat at the time of grant of lease or Mr. Ramcharan Bajpayee was eligible to receive the land on lease. Contrary to this, this fact has been proved that Mr. Ramcharan Bajpayee was working as Panch at the relevant time. Sarpanch of the gram panchayat may have issued the order granting patta in favour of a Panch of the gram panchayat, however, in my opinion, the trial Court has rightly held that no valid title was passed in favour of Mr. Ramcharan Bajpayee because Ex.P-1 was not a valid document to grant lease hold rights in favour of Mr. Ramcharan Bajpayee.

I answer the first substantial question of law accordingly by holding that Ex.P-1 is not a legal document and it did not confer valid title on Mr. Ramcharan Bajpayee and the respondents-plaintiffs. It is not necessary to answer the second substantial question of law.

The appeal filed by the appellant-defendant is hereby allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court is hereby set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is hereby upheld.

The parties are directed to bear their own costs.