Chattisgarh High Court
Revti Bai vs Ashok Kumar And Others on 9 June, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Second Appeal No. 437 of 2007
Revti Bai W/o Chanwar Singh Gada, Aged about 50
years, R/o Village Devbhog, P.S. and Tahsil
Devbhog, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
Appellant/Defendant No. 1
Versus
1. Ashok Kumar S/o Ramcharan Kalar, Aged about 36
years.
2. Hemlal S/o Ramcharan Kalar, Aged about 30 years.
3. Bisahu S/o Ramcharan, Aged about 26 years.
4. Mahesh S/o Upasu Ram Kalar, Aged about 49 years.
5. Sadaram S/o Upasu Ram Kalar, Aged about 54 years.
6. Dayaram S/o Upasu Ram Kalar, Aged about 37 years.
(All R/o Village Devbhog, Police Station and
Tahsil Devbhog, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.)
Plaintiffs
7. Tahsildar, Devbhog Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
Defendant No. 2
8. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Distt.
Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Defendant No. 3
Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondents 1 to 6 : Ms. Trishna Das, Advocate
For State : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Judgment on Board
09/06/2021
1. This second appeal preferred by the
appellant/defendant No. 1 was admitted for
hearing on 20/07/2009 by formulating the
following substantial question of law :
"Whether the Court below was not justified
in holding that the land in dispute is not
a service land allotted to Kotwar ?"
[For the sake of convenience, the parties will
hereinafter be referred to as per their status
and ranking given in the plaint before the trial
Court.]
2. The suit land was originally held by one Dasmat
Gada as patta (Ex. P/3) was granted in his
favour in Mourusi right from the Manager, Court
of Wards, Bindranvagarh Estate. He then sold the
said suit land to Bhangi Kalar by sale deeds
dated 24/07/1937 (Ex. P/1) and 11/07/1974 (Ex.
P/2). Similarly, one Bheeshmacharan and Madan
Singh sold part of the suit land in favour of
plaintiff No. 5 namely Maheshram. Since then,
being the successorsininterest of Bhangi
Kalar, plaintiffs have been in possession of the
suit land. Thereafter, at the instance of
defendant No. 1, the suit land got mutated in
her name by order dated 16/09/2004 (Ex. D/8)
passed by the Tahsildar declaring the suit land
as Kotwari service land and that has given rise
to the cause of action for filing of the suit by
the plaintiffs.
3. Defendant No. 1 filed her written statement and
opposed the plaint allegations stating inter
alia that suit land is a service land on the
strength of Exhibits D/6 and D/7, as such,
plaintiffs' suit deserves to be dismissed.
4. Learned trial Court, upon appreciation of oral
and documentary evidence on record, dismissed
the suit by its judgment and decree dated
19/01/2007, holding that suit land is a service
land and therefore, plaintiffs have no right or
title over the said suit land. On appeal being
preferred by the plaintiffs, learned first
appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree
of the trial Court and decreed the suit by the
impugned judgment and decree dated 31/07/2007
holding that suit land is not service land and
plaintiffs are the titleholders of the said
suit land against which this second appeal has
been preferred by the appellant/defendant No. 1
in which substantial question of law has been
framed and set out in the opening paragraph of
the judgment.
5. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for
the appellant/defendant No. 1, would submit that
suit land is a service land which is apparent
from the Exhibits D/6 and D/7 and since Dasmat
Gada was the Kotwar of Devbhog throughout,
therefore, the land held by him as shown in
Exhibits D/6 and D/7 would be held as service
land. As such, the first appellate Court is
absolutely unjustified in reversing the judgment
and decree of the trial Court and decreeing the
suit in favour of the plaintiffs.
6. Ms. Trishna Das, learned counsel for respondents
No. 1 to 6/plaintiffs, would submit that by
Exhibits D/6 and D/7, it is not apparent that
suit land is a service land and merely because
Dasmat Gada was the village Kotwar, the land
held by him, if any, cannot be held to be
service land as 'Right to Property' is a
Constitutional right and therefore, a person
claiming title has to establish his title
strictly in accordance with law and merely on
ipse dixit, the land cannot be declared as
service land. As such, the instant appeal
deserves to be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties,
considered their rival submissions made herein
above and went through the records with utmost
circumspection.
8. The plaintiffs herein are successorsininterest
of Bhangi Kalar, to whom patta was granted with
regard to the suit land by the Manager, Court of
Wards, Bindranvagarh Estate vide Exhibit P/3.
Learned trial Court did not accept the title of
the plaintiffs over the suit land on the basis
of the sale deeds (Exhibits P/1 and P/2), but
learned first appellate Court accepted the plea
of the plaintiffs and held that suit land is not
service land and plaintiffs are titleholders of
the said suit land. The said finding recorded by
the first appellate Court that plaintiffs are
the titleholders of the suit land and they are
in possession of the said suit land has not been
assailed by defendant No. 1 in this second
appeal, as such, that finding has become final.
9. The only question that has been raised is based
on the defence of defendant No. 1 that suit land
is a service land. In order to demonstrate that
suit land is service land, two documents in the
shape of Exhibits D/6 and D/7 have been filed.
10. A careful perusal of both the documents i.e.
Exhibits D/6 would clearly show that it is misal
bandobast of the year 192223 in which the name
of owner of the suit land is recorded as one
Nagendra Shah whereas Dasmat Gada is shown to be
the possessionholder of the suit land in
occupancy rights and also in Ex. D/7 copy of
Kharasa 192223. As such, on the basis of
Exhibits D/6 and D/7, it cannot be held that
suit land is service land merely because at the
relevant point of time, Dasmat Gada was having
the possession of the suit land in occupancy
right. The holding of official post by a person
and holding of a property by a person are two
quite different concepts and merely because a
person was the village Kotwar at the relevant
point of time, it cannot be held that his
private land would also come within the category
of serivce/Government land. Apart from this,
there is no other evidence to hold that the suit
land is service land held by Dasmat Gada,
particularly when defendant No. 1 who is Kotwar
at present has not called in question the sale
deeds executed by Dasmat Gada in favour of
plaintiffs (Exhibits P/1 and P/2) and has also
not questioned the patta granted to Dasmat Gada
vide Exhibit P/3 by the Manager, Court of Wards,
Bindranvagarh Estate.
11. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid
discussion, it is held that learned first
appellate Court is absolutely justified in
holding that suit land is not a service land. I
do not find any perversity or illegality in the
said finding recorded by the first appellate
Court.
12. The second appeal, being devoid of merits,
deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. In
view of that, all the pending applications, if
any, are finally disposed of. No cost(s).
13. Decree be drawnup accordingly.
Sd/
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Harneet
