LAW FOR ALL

this being a simple suit for grant of permanent injunction between the two private parties in relation to the land which was subject matter of the State Ceiling Laws, was liable to be dismissed on the short ground apart from many others as detailed above that any order that may be passed by the Civil Court would adversely affect and interfere in the rights of the State under the Act, which had not been impleaded as party defendant. = It is a settled principle of law that in order to claim prohibitory (temporary or permanent) injunction, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prima facie prove apart from establishing other two ingredients, namely, irreparable loss and injury that his possession over the suit land is "legal". In this case, it was not so and nor it could be for the simple reason that as far back on 21.08.1976, the Tribunal had already declared the land held by the plaintiff to be in excess of the ceiling limits prescribed under the Act. In these circumstances, the plaintiff was neither holding the land nor could he be held to be in its lawful possession so as to enable him to exercise any ownership rights against any other private party over the suit land. The appellant had then very limited rights left to exercise under the Act in relation to the suit land and such rights were available to him only against the State= in order to limit filing of such frivolous suits by the private parties in relation to agricultural land which are subjected to the State ceiling laws, the State of M.P. amended the Code of Civil Procedure by Act No. 29 of 1984 w.e.f. 14.8.84. By this State amendment, Rule 3-B was added in Order 1 Rule 10 making it obligatory upon the plaintiff to implead the State as party defendant along with private party defendant in every such suit. The amendment further provides that so long as the plaintiff does not implead the State as party defendant in the suit, the Court will not proceed with the trial of the Suit. The object behind introducing such amendment was to give notice to the State of filing of such suit by the holder of the agricultural land which would enable the State to defend their rights, which had accrued in State's favour in the land under the Act. In the absence of any such rule in operation in the State of A.P., the State remained unnoticed of the suit proceedings, which continued in Courts for last more than two decades. Before parting, we consider it apposite to state that the appellant and the respondents made frantic efforts to somehow retain the suit land to them and keep the land away from the clutches of The Act. With this aim in view, they got the suit land involved in this litigation since 1976. All this was done without notice to the State Authorities. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to take up the case of the appellant on its Board and pass appropriate consequential order, if necessary under the Act keeping in view the order dated 21.08.1976 of the Tribunal passed in CC No. 2311/VKD/75 and take all remedial steps as are necessary in relation to the land held by the appellant including the suit land.