1956 (9) TMI 67 - HC - Indian Laws

Court declares plaintiff as landowner, prohibits interference by defendants, and awards costs in successful appeal.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower courts' judgments. The court declared the plaintiff as at least a Shikmi of the land and the owner of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Plaintiff's title to the disputed land.2. Validity of the acquisition order by the State of Mewar.3. Plaintiff's right to a permanent injunction against dispossession.4. Compliance with Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code.5. Impact of the Constitution of Mewar on the acquisition process.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Plaintiff's Title to the Disputed Land:The plaintiff sought a declaration of his title to a plot of land measuring 7 biswas, on which stood a house and a well. The defendants did not dispute the plaintiff's long and continuous possession of the property, nor his possession at the time of filing the suit. However, they contended that the plaintiff was merely a Shikmi tenant and not the owner.2. Validity of the Acquisition Order by the State of Mewar:The primary issue was whether the land was ever legally acquired by the State of Mewar. The order dated Asoj Sudi 13th St. 1999 (October 1942) was examined, which declared the intention to acquire 59 bighas and 7 biswas of land, including the plaintiff's 7 biswas, for the High School building. The court found that this order was merely a declaration and did not constitute actual acquisition, as possession was never taken. The court applied principles from the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, stating that land vests in the State only when possession is taken, which never happened in this case.3. Plaintiff's Right to a Permanent Injunction Against Dispossession:The court concluded that since the land never vested in the State, the State could not legally transfer it to Mehta Jagannath Singh. Consequently, the plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him. The court decreed that the plaintiff's possession should be restored and protected unless the defendants could establish their right to the property through due legal process.4. Compliance with Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code:The trial court initially dismissed the suit on the grounds that the notice under Section 80 was not in accordance with the law. However, upon appeal, the District Judge found the notice to be legally compliant. This issue was resolved in favor of the plaintiff, allowing the suit to proceed.5. Impact of the Constitution of Mewar on the Acquisition Process:The court addressed the argument that the order of September 27, 1947, by His Highness the Maharana, which sanctioned the transfer of the land to Mehta Jagannath Singh, was unconstitutional. Article XIII (1) of the Constitution of Mewar, effective from 1947, stipulated that no person could be deprived of property without due process of law. The court held that the Ruler's fiat did not constitute due process and thus could not override the constitutional protections. The earlier order of October 1942 did not result in the property vesting in the State, and therefore, the subsequent order in 1947 was invalid.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, and the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were set aside. The court declared that the plaintiff was at least a Shikmi of the land and the owner of the house and well. The defendants were prohibited from interfering with the plaintiff's possession unless they could establish their right to do so through legal means. The plaintiff was awarded costs from Mehta Jagannath Singh, while the State was to bear its own costs.