Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Aagar Bai vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 June, 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
W.P.(227) No. 313 of 2020
Smt. Aagar Bai W/o Ram Lal Manhar Aged About 52 Years By Caste
Satnami, R/o Hasoud, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate.
For State/respondent : Mr. Sameer Oraon, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Order on Board
24/06/2021
1. This petition under Article 227 Constitution of India has been brought
being aggrieved by the order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the Court of
Civil Judge, Class-II, Jaijaipur, District- Janjgir- Champa in Civil Suit
No.5A/2020, rejecting the plaint.
2. The petitioner has filed a Civil Suit praying for relief of declaration and
injunction. On this basis that the petitioner has acquired title on the
piece of Government land through prescription after her long
possession. The Court of Additional Tehsildar, Hasaud had vide order
dated 22.12.2014 ordered for confiscation of the house of the petitioner,
which is constructed on the land in question. The petitioner challenged
the same in the Court of Sub-divisional Officer, Janjgir-Champa in
appeal. Her appeal was allowed and the order of Additional Tehsildar
was set aside. It is pleaded in the plaint that the petitioner has received
information from some reliable sources that the Additional Tehsildar,
Hasaud is again about to proceed against the petitioner and vacate her
from the property in question, therefore, the Suit was filed, which was
maintainable.
3. The petitioner has relied on the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court
in the Case of Saibaba Kirana And General Merchant Banswada VG
and Mandal Vs. Manjira Chit Fund Company, Banswada VG and
Mandal reported in (2004) 4 ALT 271 and also on the provisions in Civil
Court Rules. It is prayed that the impugned order may be set
aside/quashed.
4. The learned Trial Court made a scrutiny of the plaint and held in the
impugned order that the petitioner has filed the Civil Suit only on the
basis of some unconfirmed apprehension, therefore, there appears to
be no cause of action because of which the plaint filed by her was
rejected.
5. Order II Rule 2 provides that every suit shall include the whole of the
claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of
action. In Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., it is provided that plaint shall be
rejected in case, it does not disclose the cause of action.
6. The cause of action mentioned hereinabove means an entitlement to
legally proceed against the other party from whom the relief is sought.
Such cause of action must be genuine and real. The Suit has been filed
against the State, whereas at present there is an order standing in
favour of the petitioner which has been passed by the Additional
Collector, Janjgir-Champa in Revision Case No.28/A-68/2012-13 vide
order dated 15.07.2013, in which the earlier order of the Additional
Tehsildar was set aside. On this basis that the Additional Tehsildar had
not proceeded in accordance with law. Subsequent to which, the
Additional Tehsildar had proceeded against the petitioner and passed an
order dated 29.04.2017 which has been set aside by S.D.O. Revenue,
Sakti, C.G. in appeal, by making reference to order dated 15.07.2013 of
Additional Collector.
7. In such circumstances, it does not appear that any cause of action has
arisen in favour of the petitioner. The proceeding if any before Additional
Tehsildar if still contemplated, then the petitioner shall have the
opportunity to appear and present her case. No decision has been taken
by the respondent to take away right of the petitioner on which she puts
her claim. Therefore, I do not find any error in the impugned order. This
petition is dismissed and disposed off. This order shall not bar any
proceeding against the petitioner in Revenue Court in future.
8. Accordingly, this petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
Monika
