Full Judgment
Second Appeal No.174/2013 (Ramniwas versus State of MP) 22.02.2013 Heard Shri P.
Pareekh, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission.
The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2012 passed by the FiRs.Additional District Judge, Panna in Civil Appeal No.15-A/2011 whereby the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2011 passed by the 1st Civil Judge, Class-II, Panna in Civil Suit No.36-A/2008 has been confirmed and affirmed and the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of khaSr.No.600/1 new No.575/3 area 0.47 hectare and khaSr.No.575/4 area 0.34 hectare situated at village Joori, Tahsil Gunnour District Panna has been dismissed.
The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the suit was filed by the appellant in the year 2007 praying for declaring the order dated 08.05.2000 passed by the Collector and order dated 28.10.2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner as illegal, null and void and permanent injunction on the ground that he was in possession of the land in question since long and that the Collector could not have set aside the oder passed in favour of the appellant by the Tahsildar, Gunnour on 10.11.1994 granting lease to the appellant of the land in question after six years without giving any opportunity of hearing.
The trial court as well as the fiRs.appellate court after analyzing the evidence specifically, the plaintiff's evidence as well as the respondent's evidence and the oral evidence available on record have recorded a finding to the effect that the appellant had been granted a lease by the revenue authorities on 10.04.1989 in respect of the land in question in Revenue Case No.7-A/61-88/89 for the limited purpose of undertaking plantation vide Ex P/21 but the appellant failed to undertake any such activity on the land in question in breach of the conditions of the lease.
The courts below have taken into consideration the documents filed by the appellant/plaintiff Ex.
P/10 to P/14 to arrive at a finding that the appellant had not undertaken any plantation activity in the land in question which fact is infact not disputed.
The courts below have also recorded a finding that the lease granted to the appellant by Tahsildar on 10.11.1994 was granted in exercise of powers under the provisions of M.P.Krishi Prayojan Ke Liye Upyog Ki J.Rahi Dakhal Rahit Bhumi Par Bhumiswami Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana (Vishesh Upbandh) Adhiniyam, 1984 on an application being filed by the appellant in which the fact that the land was granted to the appellant only for the limited purpose of undertaking plantation activity and not for the agricultural purpose, was suppressed and therefore, the lease granted to the appellant on 10.11.1994 was rightly set aside by the Collector as it was dehors in provisions of the 1984 Act and was obtained by suppressing material fact and was ab initio illegal.
Both the courts below on the basis of the documents available on the record have recorded a finding to the effect that the appellant was granted opportunity by the revenue authorities before passing the impugned order.
The courts below have also recorded a finding to the effect that possession of the appellant on the land was permissive for the limited extent for undertaking plantation activity and in such circumstances, a decree for permanent injunction on the strength of such possession could not be granted to the appellant.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and also perused the judgment and decree of both the courts below.
From a perusal of the judgment and decree of the courts below it is clear that the fact, that the lease of the land in question was granted to the appellant in year 1989 for the limited purpose of undertaking plantation activity but the appellant did not undertake any plantation activity, that the lease on 10.11.1994 was granted by the authority on suppression of the aforesaid fact which was material as it would have automatically disqualified the appellant for grant of lease under the Act, 1984, that the appellant's possession on the land in question was permissive as it was initially granted in the year 1989 under section 239 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code for undertaking plantation activity and that the orders passed by the revenue authority were passed after following the procedure prescribed by law, are undisputed.
In such circumstances, merely on the strength of possession or on the strength of lease granted to the appellant on 10.11.1994, assertion of the appellant that he was entitled to be declared as owner as well as decree for permanent injunction and that the revenue authority could not set aside the lease after six yeaRs.cannot be accepted, in view of the specific facts stated above namely; that the possession of the appellant was for a limited purpose of plantation, that the lease 0n 10.11.1994 was obtained by suppressing the aforesaid fact, that the provisions of 1984 Act were not applicable to the appellant and that the lease dated 10.11.1994, on account of the aforesaid facts, was ab initio illegal.
The reliance placed by the appellant on the full bench decision of this court in the case of Ranveer Singh versus State of MP and others 2010 (4) MPLJ 17 is therefore, inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
In view of the aforesaid I find no perversity or material illegality in the findings recorded by the courts below not do I find that any substantial question of law arises for adjudication in the present appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal being meritless is dismissed.
(R.S.Jha) Judge msp