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.