Santhru (Dead) vs (Deleted) Dhanrajiya
2021 Latest Caselaw 636 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                          NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                 Second Appeal No.463 of 2007
    Santhru (died) through LR's
    (A) Jhariharo           Wd/o    Lare    Santhru,     aged     about    70
    years,
    (B) Rambharosh,          S/o    Late     Santhru,    aged     about    49
    years,
    (C) Shankar Ram Yadav S/o Late Santhru, aged about
    43 years,
    (D) Shabhu        Ram    S/o    Late     Santhru,    aged     about    43
    years,
    (E) Ram     Pyare,       S/o    Late     Santhru,    aged     about    39
    years,
    All are R/o Village Nawaband, P.S. Darima and Tahsil
    Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (CG)
                               ­­­­ LR's of Appellant/Plaintiff
                                   Versus
  1. Dhanrajiya (died and deleted)
  2. State of Chhattisgarh,                 Through:    The      Collector,
     Surguja (Ambikapur) (CG)
                                                       ­­­­ Respondents

For LR's of Appellant/Plaintiff:

Mr.Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate Respondent No.1 died and her name has been deleted For Respondent No.2/State:

Mr.Ravi Bhagat, Dy.G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Judgment On Board

28/06/2021

1. This second appeal preferred by the original

plaintiff was admitted for hearing on 12.12.2019 by

formulating the following substantial question of

law for determination:­

"Whether both the Courts below were justified in holding that the suit is barred by provisions contained under Section 257 (l­1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 by recording a finding which is perverse and contrary to record ?"

[For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown and nomenclature in the suit before the trial Court].

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title

and permanent injunction stating inter­alia that he

is title­holder of the land bearing Khasra No.153

area 0.030 hectare and order of the Sub­Divisional

Officer, Surguja dated 25.5.2001 and order of the

Colletor, Surguja dated 22.2.2002 are illegal and

void. It has been further pleaded that he is owner

and title­holder of the land bearing Khasra Nos.152,

153 and 155 area and in Khasra No.153 which is 0.030

hectare he is in possession for last 25 years. In a

proceeding initiated by defendant No.1­Dhanrajiya

under Section 170­B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue

Code, 1959 (hereinafter called as "the Code") the

Sub­Divisional Officer, Surguja by order dated

25.5.2001 directed for reversion of the defendant's

land holding that the plaintiff has constructed the

house on the land bearing Khasra No.154/1 area 0.029

hectare, which has been affirmed by the Collector,

Surguja, which has been done without hearing the

plaintiff and without noticing him, which was

opposed by defendant No.1 by filing written

statement.

3. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence available on record, by its

judgment and decree dated 30.4.2005, dismissed the

suit holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove

his title over the suit land, but also declared the

suit to be barred by the provisions contained in

Section 257 (l­1) of the Code. On appeal being

preferred by the plaintiff, the first appellate

Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial

Court, against which, the plaintiff preferred this

second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, in which

one substantial question of law has been formulated

by this Court, which has been set­out in opening

paragraph of this judgment for sake of completeness.

4. Mr.Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for legal

representatives of the appellant / plaintiff, would

submit that both the Courts below have committed

legal error in dismissing the suit to be barred by

the provisions contained in Section 257(l­1) of the

Code. He would rely upon the judgment passed by this

Court in the matter of Rameshwar Ram and Ors. v.

Dwarikaram and Ors.1.

5. None for respondent No.1/Defendant No.1 as

Dhanrajiya has died and her name has been deleted as

she has no legal representatives.

6. The issue with regard to the order passed under

Section 170­B of the Code the Code, the jurisdiction

of the Civil Court is barred under Section 257(l­1)

of the Code came­up for consideration before this

Court in Rameshwar Ram (supra), in which this Court

held as under:­

"18. In view of the aforesaid analysis, firstly it is held that the provision contained in Section 257 (L­1) barring the matter covered under Section 170­B of the Code came into force w.e.f. 15.12.1995, whereas the suit was filed on 18.8.1994 challenging the order passed by the Sub­Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jashpurnagar dated 15.6.1994. The express bar was not applicable on the date of institution of suit. Secondly, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and consider the matter covered by the provisions contained in Section 257 (L­1) of the Code to the extent whether the revenue authority has complied with the procedure prescribed or not while holding an enquiry and passing the order, but the Civil Court has limited jurisdiction as laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Dhulabhai (supra)."

7. From the aforesaid proposition, it is quite apparent

that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not

completely barred and to certain level as indicated

above the Civil Court can look into whether while

passing the impugned order the principle of natural

1 2017(2)CGLJ 146

justice has been followed or not and whether enquiry

has been conducted in accordance with law or not.

8. In that view of the matter, the judgment and decree

of both the Courts below to the extent of holding

the jurisdiction to be barred is hereby set­aside.

Since both the Courts below have held that the Civil

Court has no jurisdiction and the suit is barred by

the provisions contained in Section 257 (l­1) of the

Code, it could not have recorded a finding on

merits. Civil suit is now remanded to the trial

Court for adjudication afresh in accordance with

law. Civil Suit will be tried and completed within

three months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order as the matter is of old one.

9. The second appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

hereinabove. No cost(s).

Sd/-

(Sanjay K.Agrawal) Judge B/­