STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. versus BRIJESH KUMAR AWASTHI AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 907 · Decided: 10-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
BRIJESH KUMAR AWASTHI AND ORS. 
MARCH 10, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.) 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
Order XXXIX, Rules 1and2-Temporary Injunction-Land of respon-
dent acquired under Forest Act-In lieu of compensation land given to C 
respondent-Award became final-Possession taken ove!'-Later, suit by 
respondent for declaration of title to the acquired land and for compensa-
tion-Conservator off orest without .any sanction from Govemment suffered 
a compromise decree in collusion with the respondent-Suit by Govemment 
for declaration and to set aside the decree on ground of collusion and D 
fraud-Application for interim injunction dismissed by all the courts 
below-Held, at the time of the first suit, State being in possession of the land 
and when the State is agitating the right on the ground of fraud and collusion, 
pending suit State was entitled to an injunction restraining the respondents 
from getting the fraudulent decree executed-There would be an interim E 
injunction pending suit. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1977 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.4.96 of the Madhya Pradesh F 
High Court in M.A. No. 414 of 1996. 
B.S. Banthia and S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellants. 
S.S. Tiwari for the Respondents. 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. 
Leave granted. 
H 
907 
908 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 
B 
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, Shi\'.shankar 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 
Section16 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. 
C 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, N arendra Kumar, the 
Conservator of Forest, the third respondent colluded with the respondents 
1 and 2 without any sanction of the State Government and appears to have 
D 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, objecting 
E to the execution on the ground of fraud. The application was dismissed. 
F 
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 there was a valid 
award passed under the provisions of the Forest Act and the award came 
G to be set aside on a compromise by 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 
H and collusion, it is obvious that, pending suit, the appellants were entitled 
STATE v. B.K. A WASTHI 
909 
to an injunction restraining the respondents from getting the fraudulent A 
decree passed against the State, 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 B 
also of the Civil Courts. stand set aside. There sho

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.