Case Title: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VERSUS SATISH JAIN (DEAD) BY LRS & ORS
Case No: 6884 OF 2012
Decided on:18th April, 2024
Quorum: Honourable Justice VIKRAM NATH
Facts of the case
A civil claim was filed by Satish Jain, the son of Dayanand Jain, naming one Rama, the son of Parasram, as defendant No. 1 a mandatory injunction, and a permanent injunction through Collector, Bhopal, as respondent No. 2. Defendant No. 1 has, however, been enjoying calm and continuous adverse possession over the suit land for the past 50–60 years, and as a result, he has perfected his rights through adverse possession and has turned the land into his own. Additionally, it was claimed that defendant No. 1 had given the plaintiff all of his rights, title, and interest over the suit land. The plaintiff installed wired fencing and began to enjoy possession of the suit land. The plaint also alleges that defendant No. 1 learned that some State agents and workers had visited the suit land and attempted to remove the fencing, and that he was likely to transfer the aforementioned land once more in favor of the third party. Under these conditions, the plaintiff was obliged to file a lawsuit seeking a declaration, a mandatory injunction, and a permanent injunction. BMC filed an application under Section 89 of the CPC, requesting that the plaintiff be ordered to pay Rs. 30,00,000 (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) in accordance with the terms of the agreement of July 30, 1991, against the value of the granted land. It was also mentioned that BMC is prepared to fulfill its responsibilities should the entire sum be deposited. The objections made it clear that BMC did not have the authority or business to deal with the land without the State’s express approval or agreement, and that the State of Madhya Pradesh still retains title of the site.
Contentions
The plaintiff has not received any such declaration. Since the ex-parte decree was overturned, the plaintiff had no opportunity to take further action regarding the agreement because no rights had become clear to the parties. The plaintiff’s ex-parte decree of declaration and injunction served as the foundation for that arrangement. This is assuming that the agreement ever had any validity in the first place. There seems to be evidence of BMC and the plaintiff working together in some way. The entire foundation for entering into the agreement was thrown aside, therefore regardless of whether the agreement contained a provision for the appointment of an arbitrator, none of the parties could have relied on the agreement itself. BMC could not have handled it or treated it as being in the plaintiff’s ownership or possession, even if the State had given it to them to build a bus station. BMC would be required to use the aforementioned land for the reason it was given as an allottee of the State. It was legally required to take the necessary actions to remove the plaintiff’s possession, which was completely unauthorized and unlawful.
Court Analysis and Judgement
The agreement itself would not have any legal validity, even between the parties, after both orders were overturned and the lawsuit moved forward from the point where the appellant-state filed its written declaration. Because the plaintiff’s entitlement established by the ex-parte order was extinguished, BMC should have been cautious to avoid depending on the agreement going forward. By reversing the award, the Trial Court was justified in granting the application. The High Court made an error in grave error in failing to take into account pertinent factors and relying solely on the appellant-state’s declaration made in front of the trial court that the state had no interest because it had given BMC the land for a bus stand and, as a result, should be removed from the list of parties as defendant no. 2. In any event, unless the State has already disposed of or withdrew all of the applications, they are all still pending before the Trial Court. Considering the aforementioned, the appeal is justified and granted as a result. The High Court’s contested order is overturned. The lawsuit will be heard by the Trial Court, which will make a merits decision based on the evidence .
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace
