ABDUL HAMID Vs. DAUDI BOHRA JAMAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.9.2004 passed by II Additional District Judge, Dewas in Civil Suit No. 3-A/03, whereby the suit filed by the appellant for compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- was dismissed, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that the appellant filed a suit for realisation of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation on 10.5.2001 alleging that respondent is recorded Bhumi Swami of the land bearing various survey numbers measuring 1.589 hectares situated at Tahsil and District Dewas. It was alleged that respondent filed a petition under section 168 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, which shall be referred hereinafter as MPLRC, in the Court of SDM, Dewas alleging that appellant is in occupation of the land as lessee. It was alleged that the said petition filed by the respondent was registered as Case No. 232/B-121/98-99 and was allowed vide order dated 31.7.2000. It was alleged that against the order dated 31.7.2000 passed by SDM, Dewas, whereby appellant was directed to handover the possession of the agricultural property mentioned herein above, appellant filed an appeal along with an application for staying the operation of the order before Collector, Dewas. It was alleged that the appeal filed by the appellant was transferred to ADM, Dewas, wherein it was directed to call the record from the Court of SDM, Dewas. It was alleged that the record was not sent by SDM, Dewas. Further case of the appellant was that in the order dated 31.7.2000 it was directed that notice be issued to the appellant under section 38 of MPLRC for handing over the possession of the suit property within a period of 24 hours, failing which action be taken under section 38 for removal of the possession of the appellant. It was alleged that the notice was never served on the appellant, however it was served on one Kallu, brother of the appellant, who was not the member of the family of the appellant. It was alleged that without following the procedure laid down under section 38 possession of the land in dispute alongwith the house and the standing crops was taken by the respondent. It was alleged that the house, which was constructed by the appellant was demolished by the respondent and the standing crops were also cut down by the respondent.

(3.) IT was alleged that cause of action has accrued to the appellant with effect from 4.8.2000, when the possession was taken by the respondent.