Bhuvneshwar Tamrakar And Ors vs State Of C.G And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 933 Chatt

                                  1

                                                               NAFR

   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                      SA No. 72 of 2012

1. Bhuvneshwar Tamrakar S/o Late Prabhu Prasad
  Tamrakar, aged about 66 years.

2. (a)    Smt.      Surekha       Tamrakar,     aged    about   45
  years, Wd/o Late Rameshwar Prasad Tamrakar,

  (b)     Harishchandra           Tamrakar,    aged     about   25
  years, S/o Late Rameshwar Prasad Tamrakar,

  (c) Bhagyesh Chandra Tamrakar, aged about 21
  years, S/o          Late Rameshwar Prasad Tamrakar,

  2(a) to 2(c) are R/o Village Kareli, Tehsil
  Dhamdha, District Durg C.G.

3. Vinayak Tamrakar, aged about 37 years,

4. Vimal Kumar Tamrakar, aged about 33 year,

5. Vipin Kumar Tamrakar, aged about 35 year,

6. Brijesh Tamrakar, aged about 30 years,

  No.     3    to     6   are     S/o   Late   Girija    Shankar
  Tamrakar.

7. Smt.       Meera       Bai    Tamrakar,     aged    about    55
  years, Wd/o Late Girija Shankar Tamrakar R/o
  Village Samoda Tah. & District Durg, C.G.

8. Smt.       Sulochana          Tamrakar,     aged    about    52
  years, W/o Shri C.B.L. Tamrakar, R/o Chandi
  Mandir        Road,           Tamerpara,     Durg,     Tah.    &
                             2

  District Durg, C.G.

                                        ­­­­ Appellants

                        Versus

1. State      of      Chhattisgarh,      through       the
  Collector, Durg, C.G.

2. Gram Panchayat Samoda, through its Sarpanch,
  Village Samoda, P.H. No.51 Tehsil & District
  Durg, C.G.

3. Smt. Kumari, Bai, aged about 24 years, W/o
  Shri Bharat Desmukh,

4. Chhagan,    aged     about    32   years,    S/o   Shri
  Chhannulal,

5. Gulab Singh, aged about 35 years, S/o Shri
  Thanwar Deshmukh.

6. (1) Smt. Devki Bai Deshmukh, aged about 50
  years, Wd/o Late Mohan Lal Deshmukh,

  (2) Chudaman Deshmukh, aged about 26 years,
  S/o Late Mohanlal Deshmukh,

  (3) Chintaram Deshmukh, aged about 19 years,
  S/o Late Mohanlal Deshmukh,

  (4) Smt. Lata Bai, aged about 23 years, W/o
  Shri     Manmohan         Deshmukh,    R/o      Village
  Suregaon,        Tehsil    Dondi    Lohara,    District
  Durg, C.G.

7. Chhaganlal, aged about 38 years, S/o Lakhan
                            3

     Lal Deshmukh,

  8. Piluram, aged about 55 years, S/o Prabhuram
     Nirmalkar.

  9. Pooran Lal, aged about 45 years, S/o Nandlal
     Deshmukh,

  10.Mahesh    Sharan,   aged   about    40   years,   S/o
     Late Bodhan Singh Deshmukh.

  11.Ramesh Chandra, aged about 38 years, S/o
     Late Bodhan Singh Deshmukh.

    All are R/o Village Samoda, P.H. No.51 Tah,
    & District Durg, C.G.

                                        ­­­­ Respondents

For Appellants :­ Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order on Board

07/07/2021

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 appellants / plaintiffs.

3. By the impugned judgment, the first

appellate Court has dismissed the appeal

preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs

affirming the judgment and decree of the

trial Court dismissing the suit of the

plaintiff.

4. Mr. Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the

appellants/plaintiffs, submits that the

plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of

title and permanent injunction stating

inter­alia that he is in possession over the

suit land prior to coming into force of the

Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for

brevity "the Code, 1959") w.e.f. 02.10.1959

and, as such, he became title holder of the

suit land by virtue of Section 246 of the

the Code, 1959. He further submits that the

plaintiff has perfected his title by way of

adverse possession, but both the Courts

below have dismissed the suit by recording a

finding which is perverse to the record,

therefore, appeal deserves to be admitted by

formulating the substantial question of law

for determination of this second appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the

appellants/plaintiffs and perused the

records.

6. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration

of title and permanent injunction stating

inter alia that he is in possession over the

suit land prior to coming into force of the

Code, 1959 and, as such, he became title

holder of the suit land by virtue of Section

246 of the Code, 1959 and alternatively, he

pleaded that he has perfected his title by

way of adverse possession, whereas the case

of the defendants is that the suit property

has already been acquired by the

Compensation Officer, Durg, in Compensation

Case No.154/I­A­4/1950­51 [State vs.

Shyamlal) and compensation has been paid to

Shri Abhay Singh S/o Shri Pilasao, head of

their family, therefore, suit is liable to

be dismissed.

7. Two Courts below have concurrently recorded

the findings that the suit land has been

acquired by the State Government in the

matter of State vs. Shyamlal and title has

been vested with State Government and

compensation has been paid to the head of

the family i.e. Shri Abhay Singh S/o Shri

Pilasao, by order of Compensation Officer

and that order has become final, therefore,

the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief

in the instant suit.

8. The above­stated findings are the finding of

fact based on oral and documentary evidence

available on the record. Once the plaintiff

has lost his title over the suit land after

accepting the compensation, he cannot again

assert title and get a decree for

declaration of title in his favour. I do not

find any substantial question of law for

admission of this second appeal.

9. Accordingly, the instant second appeal being

devoid 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