Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gaya Prasad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 April, 2015
S.A. No.1113/09 20.04.2015
Shri Atulanand Awasthy, learned counsel for the appellants. Heard on the question of admission.
The appellants/plaintiffs have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court. The appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
The appellants-plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. They pleaded that the suit land was purchased by the father of plaintiffs Kashiram on 28.2.1951 by registered sale deed and since then, they had been in possession on the suit land. However, the suit land was registered as Forest land by the Government which was illegal. The defendant/State of M.P. pleaded that after abolition of Zamidari, the land was vested in the State and thereafter, it was recorded in the revenue record as Government Forest. The Collector vide order dated 21.4.1997, has held that the land was of Government and on some portion of the land there was a grass and it was vested with the Government. The plaintiffs claimed their right and ownership on two grounds. First that they purchased the suit land and second that they perfected the title on the basis of adverse possession. Both the grounds were negatived by the trial Court as well as appellate Court. The trial Court has recorded a finding that the land was purchased from the sons of Malgujar Rajjulal, however, Pooranchand, Tulsiram and Komalchand received title in the land was not explained. The sale deed was executed in pursuance to the agreement to sale. The land was vested in the Government after abolition of Zamidari in accordance with the provision of M.P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act 1950. The appellants-plaintiffs failed to prove the fact that they purchased the land from rightful owners. Both the Courts below appreciated the aforesaid facts. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the findings recorded by both the Courts below that the plaintiff did not get any right of ownership in the land is in accordance with law. The Court below has also negatived the plea of adverse possession. Admittedly the land was declared as Forest Land in the year 1971 and the possession of the Forest Department was recorded. In such circumstances, the Court below has rightly held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they perfected their title on the basis of adverse possession. Both the Courts below have appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence in accordance with law. No substantial question of law involves for determination in this appeal. Hence, I do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed.
(S.K. Gangele) Judge Pb