Smt. Geeta Devi vs The Commissioer Municipal ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1089 Chatt

                               1

                                                         NAFR

      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                    SA No. 143 of 2012

   Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Shri Gyanchand Satnami,
    R/o      Ward   No.     33,     Bapunagar,    Khursipar,
    Bhilai, Tah. & Dist. Durg C.G.

                                               ­­­­ Appellant

                            Versus

   The      Commissioner          Municipal     Corporation,
    Bhilai,     Officer­Supela,         Bhilai,    Tahsil   &
    District - Durg, C.G.

                                           ­­­­ Respondent

For Appellant:­ Mr. Chandrabhushan Kesharwani, Adv.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

13/07/2021

1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken

up through video conferencing.

2. Heard on admission and formulation of

substantial question of law in second appeal

preferred by the appellant / plaintiff.

3. By the impugned judgment and decree, the first

appellate Court has dismissed the appeal

preferred by the appellant / plaintiff

affirming the judgment and decree of the trial

Court dismissing the suit of the appellant /

plaintiff.

4. Mr. Chandrabhushan Kesharawani, learned

counsel for the appellant / plaintiff, would

submit that both the Courts below have

concurrently erred in holding that the

plaintiff has not perfected her title by way

of adverse possession over the suit land owned

by the defendant by recording a finding which

is perverse to the record and, as such, the

appeal deserves to be admitted for hearing by

formulating substantial question of law for

determination.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the

appellant/plaintiff, considered his rival

submissions and also went through the records.

6. It is the case of plaintiff that she is in

possession over the suit land owned by the

defendant­Municipal Corporation for more than

20 years and that has been demolished by the

defendant­Municipal Corporation without

authority of law whereas she has remained in

possession for more than 20 years as

concurrently recorded by both the Courts below

and both the Courts below have not granted

decree.

7. The trial Court has recorded a finding that

for proving adverse possession against the

land of State Government / land of Municipal

Corporation, person claiming adverse

possession must be peaceful and uninterrupted

possession over the suit land for 30 years

relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court

in the matter of State of Rajasthan vs. Harful

Sing1. The plaintiff has not perfected her

title by adverse possession as in order to

claim adverse possession over the Government

land / land of Municipal Corporation person

claiming adverse possession must establish

that she is in peaceful & uninterrupted

possession over the suit land for 30 years,

whereas plaintiff has pleaded that she is in

possession over the suit land for more than 20

years, owned by the Corporation, and, as such,

two Courts below dismissed the suit of the

plaintiff.

1 2000(4) scale 366 (Supreme Court)

8. Finding recorded by two courts below that the

plaintiff has not perfected her title by way

of adverse possession over the suit land by

remaining in possession for 20 years, owned by

the Corporation, is the finding of the fact

based on evidence available on record. It is

neither perverse nor contrary to the record,

as such, I do not find any substantial

question of law for determination of this

second appeal.

9. Accordingly, the second appeal being deviod of

merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed

in limine without notice to other side. No

cost(s).

Sd/­ (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

Ankit