Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF M.P & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
BRIJESH KUMAR AWASTHI & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/03/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
This special leave petition arises from the judgment of
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench, made on
April 11, 1996 in M.A No. 414/96. Respondent No.2,
Shivshankar Shukla was the owner of the land from khasra No.
336, Peesajhodi, Tehsil in District Betul. The said property
was acquired and an award came to be made under section 16
of the Indian Forest Act By the Forest Superintending
officer. In lieu of compensation, the land to an extent of
4.50 acres of Khasra No. 282/1 and 292 was given to them .
That award became final. After taking over possession
thereof, the standing timbers(bamboos) were removed. The
respondents filed Civil Suit No. 4A of 1988 for a
declaration of title to the land in khasra No. 336 and for
compensation of Rs.39,000/-, After filing the written
statement contesting the suit, Narendra Kumar, the
Conservator of Forest, the third respondent colluded with
the respondents 1 and 2 with out any sanction of the State
Government and appears to have suffered a compromise decree
in that suit, The additional District judge, Betul,
accordingly, passed a decree on May 8, 1992 setting aside
the award. After one and a half years, the respondents filed
an execution application upon which the appellants came to
know of the decree for the first time. Consequently, They
filed an application under Section 47, CPC, objection to the
execution on the ground of fraud. The application was
dismissed. The writ petition filed by the appellants was
dismissed by the High Court with liberty to agitate their
right in an appropriate suit. Consequently, the suit was
filed for declaration and to set aside the decree on the
ground of collusion and fraud played upon the Government.
Along with the suit, an application under order XXXIX, Rule
1 and 2, CPC came to be filed. The application for
injunction was dismissed and the appeal has also been
dismissed by the High Court. Thus, this appeal by special
leave.
From the above narration of the facts, it is seen that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
there was a valid award passed under the provisions of the
Forest Act and the award came to be set aside on a
compromise but third respondent though having no authority
from the State Government . It is the admitted position that
when the first suit was filed by them, the State was in
possession of the property. On that premise, they sought
damages against the State. Under these circumstances, when
the State is agitating the right on the ground of fraud and
collusion, it is obvious that, pending suit, the appellants
were entitled to an injunction restraining the respondents
from getting the fraudulent decree passed against ,
executed.
Under these circumstances, the trial Court as well as
the High court has committed manifest error of law in not
granting the injunction.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the
High Court and also of the civil Courts stand set aside.
There should be an interim injunction pending suit. The
trial court is directed to dispose of the suit
expeditiously. No costs.