STATE OF M.P. AND ANR.versusBRIJESH KUMAR AWASTHI AND ORS.

                     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 offorest 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.

           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.
B
    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, Narendra 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.
    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
F
    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. AWASTHI                         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 should be an interim
injunction pending suit. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit
expeditiously. No costs.

R.P.                                                      Appeal allowed.