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.