IN THE mGH COURT OFJUDIGATURE ATBILASPUR SLLANT !<LAINTIFF /' ' :r S.A.NO. 4"?2-OF 2003 Haridas Jaisawal, S/o. Jagannath Jaisawal aged about 43 years, R/o. B;u| Stand, Raigarh, Present address Kotra Road ,Raigarh DistrictRaigarh (C.G.). VERSUS ^SPONDENTS DEEENDANTS .../•" 1^^^^ o^^.^ "l. Chhattisgarh Govemment Tlirough Collector, Raigarh (C.G.) ^2. NagarPalikaParishad, Raigarh Thrbugh ChiefMunicipal OfBcer, ./%?•"" ^.^^iy: M^^^ ^SEC^NBhA&EAIJB^EKlSEariON.lbn ^" ^ €OBE'OF:GIifnSlEBiOffl!E]MJR!E' im :'tl! ^HG—78 iT^I''E!l^Ni' csii^igrqNi' << f^lil^i' CCEWIa?1?, 18-01-2005 qnqfepilTwrcif •?fe^ ^R?T ^stfiTqa-n^i Smt. Hameeda Siddjque Counsel for the appeltant. Heard on the questi^n of admission. This Second Appeal] Section 100 of the C.P.C.I dated 06-02-2003 passed| Civil Appeal No. 39-A/2001| dismissed and the judgmerjt Judge Class - I, Raigarh in| land described in Schedule! has been filed by the plaintiff / appetlant under against the impugned Judgment and decree by First Additional i District Judge, Raigarh in whereby the appeal of the appellant has been anddecree dated 08-05-2001 passed by Civii Givil Suit No. 31-A/92, has been confirmed. Case of the plaintiff (seforethe learned Civil Judge was that the suit -'A' was encroached by the plaintiff in the year 1970-71 which was subsec|jently given on temporary lease onannua! rent of Rs. 141.25/-and the p|laintiff paid this rent up to 1989 and he was continuously in possessioij) thereof for 18 years by erectingl the Hotel. Temporary lease was giveil in the year 1976-77. Howeyer, theiapplication for permanent lease has }iot been decided and same is still pending. When the revenue officersjthreatened the plaintiff to dispossess, the suit was filed. However, the Uefendant respondent No. 2 dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit premjses on 19-12-1985 and started consfruction of shops over the suit land. Respondent No. 2 however made a mention that in case the shops are c^nstructed over the suit land, the appellant / i__^n- I.M>M]fiW**<(»<eL*t.-<.'•i^RHt ?;fT..i^ rt.-L-J;] W.SIa'TOi' ..) ~5^ ^WvW, WSTWfS, Ts!<?1i-"4< ^ ^•At^92~/03 ifff '•<' qiNwflT iwirif ^'fe'si ^srRiqaD^i piaintiff would be entitled for preferentia! alfotment of the same. As the defendantNo. 1 has recovejed a totai sum of Rs. 2172.75/- as rent il!egaily, the plaintiff is entitlecj to recover the same and accordingly the suit was filed for declarationlthat he was entitled for renewal of the temporary iease and aiso Sha? the proceedings of ejactment are illegal. Relieffor possession ofthe si|it land was also ciaimed. In the altemative the plaintiff also prayed for preferential treatment in the matter of aliotment and recoveryof Rs. 2172.754- being the rent iliega'ly recovered by the defendant No. 1 from the plainliff. The defsndants deniedl pendency of revenue cases. the plaint allegations. They a!so denied They also denied the fact that due td the shops being in corner, the pjublie interest shall be adversely affected. Defendants further pleaded th^t the suit was barred by iimitation and that the plaintiff has not paid prop^r Court fee and the suit land was given by defendant No. 1 to defendant |slo. 2 for the purpose of construetion iof the Bus Stand, Waiting room, Busjparking, and the Nazul rent was being jpaid by defendantNo. 2 and th^refore, the plaintiff was not entitled for permanent or temporary leas^. Similarlyit was a!so stated that plaintiff was not entitled for obtaining t|ie possession Of constructed shops on the basis of preferential freatmerit as the construction has been done for public interest. Legal objec|ion was also raised that suit was barred under Sections 57 and 257 offtie M.P. Land Revenue Code. ,..-»fc. .E-At^'<te-^c^*b£*dt.^^A.&^IB^Bfc%fc»^,.Ftt .Kik— i i qrarcw, 'E^wre', f5RTC"p ...........^.•^.:.Z122^.... Tiaiwgitg 3?roi »-•;>-!- •wfeqhiTpTOf-^ fe^t •rfsre^R: cf1 3iBT;T an^t dismissed and the trial Court On the basis of the ple^dings of the respective parties the suit was heid that the plaintiff was not entitled for possession as prayed by him. |The trial Court also heid that the plaintiff is neither entitled for possession jof the suit property nor for the shops tobe constructed over the suit lanfcl on the basis of preferentia! treatment. Relief for recovery of Rs. 217?.75/- was also refused on the ground that the plaintiff had faiied to prove The suit was also held to bef|ime barred on the ground that the piaintiff himself admitted that he was d| as per section 57(3) oftheM.FI to as Code for convenience) ^ and the private party, the suit <| in this regard by teading cogent eyidence. ispos^tHfromthe suit land in the year 1989 Jf . Land Revenue Code (hereinafter! referred iny dispute about iease between the State iould be fi!ed within one year from the date when the cause of action arosfe byt in this case the present suit was filed !n the year 1992 which was b^yond the period prescribed undef Section 57oftheCode. ! The appeal of the aplpeilant was aiso dismissed by the first appeilate Court. However, tlje appellate Court held that the suit was within limitation and it was pyoperly stamped. Learned first appellate Court aiso held that the lease t/as for a period of one year and there was no extension of the same ther^after. !t was further held by the appellate Court that the payment of leaie rent made by the plaintiff will not make him entitied for the permaneijit iease. Since the land was allotted to 'liSl^lR^P iT3Ii^I%Tn3i' l!iiti. 3TC?~?qraT^ra, ^iTira^Tc, w ..^^.•...-^^ a:[I^I 1raq7 (1i?t3a^1 •^ •qTO?ff'? TS^t ?3ffinan^[ defendant No. 2 who has co^istructed the Bus stand and the shops, eontention ofthe plaintiff that th|e defendant No.2 has no right overthe suit property, is npt acceptable. | The plaintiff would have purchased the constructed shops by the pa|ticipating in the auction proceeding and therefore the question of givin! The shops have been consfru|sted over the suit land and therefore, the plaintiff ought to have valued preference to the plaintiff does not arise. :he suit on the basis of present valuation which he has not done. As th^ plaintiff is seeking possession ofthe suit properiy, finding of the trial Co^rt that the vaiuation put by the plaintiff was not proper and it had no jurjsdiction to try the suit on the ground of valuation of the suit, can also n|ot be faulted and the suit dismissed on this ground is improper. Howeve^, the appeal has been dismissed on the ground that the temporary iea^ never extended subsequently not confer any right on the pla todefendant / respondent No. of which the possession of defendant No. 2, can not be basis ofwhich the plaintiff/app be baseless by the appellate C| e was for a period of one year which was ^nd the deposit of rent by the plaintiffwil! intiff and as thesuit land has been allotted |2 vide document Exhibit D-1 in pursuance |he suit property has been obtained by jheld to be iilegal. As per documents of Exhibit P-19 and P-20which a|e the memos issuaiby the Collector on the ^llant had prayed for allotment of shops on the basis of the preferential trejatment, but however the same was Held to t)urt. 18 11 .'^w^f*^'^1 aii^i q^ fe-tifl ^T^T sn^T a)*<iet> ^=T •<ii*ii<a<i, E$Tii'y'ie, l^cTRT^: ^^ .....$;.^.:..±!5^''§3........ sn^i'TO^T (yit^'Kt^) wiiwaftd •sm^f 5"- nls Learned appe!late Court direction ofthe Coiiector, it has right on the plaintiff of any allotment. There is no allegation| this effect that the plaintiff was foi| piaintiff was at iiberty to partic] completion of the construction of in the cross examination and yncjer the plaintiff that he is entitled for| the appellate Court and accordinfily the judgment and decree passed Learned counsel for the p| the absence of any permanent right to claim possession based] looking to the long possession oj also the fact that he was paying | legitimate expectation that they s| shop by the defendants which h^ of the plaintiff that he had a pr^ shops from the defendants, has and as such defendants were e4 qi{<{[<rt<iti Wfl^* "^ fel<il <F;>|<^|< ^affiman^i jfurther held that since it was a mere tegal sanctity as it does not confer any pijeferential treatment in the matters of i|s in the plaint nor in the evidence !ed to ijcibly ejected by defendant No. 2 and the ]pate in auction proceedings evenafter (he shop which is admitted by the plaintiff these cireumstences the contention of Ipreferential treatment was negatived by the appeal was dismissed conflrming ^y the trial Court. |aintiff / appellant frankly admitted that in ^ase in favour of the plaintiff, he had no on title. However, it was arguedthat the plaintiff over the suit premises and |annual rent to the defendants, they had ^iall be adjusted after construction i<rf the |s not been done and therefore theiclaim ^ferential right to obtain the constrycted >een illegaliy negatived bythetrialiCourt ^topped from resiling from their stand in <^%> i.Kiiiiiil i"utu.a(gBBn>itg.AM»n—(«ii!w + C—78 3flN ^T ft-fi'* "s^sn^S a»fia>i 3^ "i<i't|i^''i, ©•al'y'is,fa<iiyy,< ^......^:..^12^/b^.:.. 3ii^?! "CT5ra'(1pf3^ET) TOiTCR^lfWCT^I & which they had promised that) adjusted. do not see any force in| any right for preferential treatm|ent shops were to be sold by opei^ free to participate in the said au4tion in the appeal memo are purelyj finding of both the Courts belojiw from the suit premises forcefulIV obtain possession ofthe suit prfjiperty not call for any interference an<l involved in this appeal for deterrjiination Accordingly the appeal be dismissed and it is dismissed •••fcr-''J!'-+Iflltnii chl<lfci<ill ^WV^ ^ fsl<l t^l^K ^SifiPT-311^1 after construction, the plaintiff shall be the submission of the plaintiff that he had for obtaining the shops because the auction and the plaintlff / appellant was and the points raised by the appellant questions of fact and.there is concurrent that the plaintiff was not dispossessed and as the plaintiff had no valid right to on the basis of same lease,they do as such nosubstantial question of law is hbs no substance and the same is liable to assuch. ' Sd/- e