Chattisgarh High Court
Mahettar vs Nankusiya on 21 February, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
SA No. 8 of 2022
Mahettar S/o Chhotan Aged About 78 Years Caste Nai, R/o Village Taktoiya,
Tehsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Nankusiya Wd/o Chhotan Aged About 75 Years R/o Chatripara, Village
Vicharpur, Tehsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.
2. Ramesh S/o Chhotan Aged About 60 Years Caste Gond, R/o Chatripara,
Village Vicharpur, Tehsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.
3. Punni Bai D/o Chhotan Aged About 42 Years W/o Mahaveer, Caste Gond, R/o
Village Bharri Chachedi, Tehsil Lormi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
4. Ghuraiya Bai D/o Chhotan Aged About 48 Years W/o Rewaram, Caste Gond,
R/o Village Kulhidongri, Tehsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.
5. Tirith Bai D/o Chhotan Aged About 53 Years W/o Samelal, Caste Gond, R/o
Village Mungadih, Tehsil Pandariya, Disrict Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.
6. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
21.02.2022 Shri Akhil Kumar Agrawal, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the
State.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
the trial Court after appreciating the evidence and materials
on record has decreed the suit in favour of the appellant
which has been reversed by the learned Appellate Court
ignoring the fact that no objection has been raised before
the trial Court with regard to jurisdiction, but, at appellate
stage objection has been raised. Learned counsel for the
appellant would submit that the declaration and permanent
injunction is within the jurisdiction of Civil Court only, this
cannot be taken into consideration by the Revenue Court
and would further submit that the First Appellate Court has
committed illegality in setting abide the judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court on the count that is
correction in revenue record is within the jurisdiction of
Revenue Court only. This point needs to be considered by
this Court, accordingly, the appeal is admitted on the
following substantial question of law:-
"Whether the first appellate Court was justified in
reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court, decreed the suit in favour of the appellant by
perverse findings without considering the competency and
jurisdiction to decide declaratory relief which lies with the
Civil Court only?"
Heard on application for interim application filed by
the appellant under Order 41 Rule 5 and 151 of the C.P.C.
Taking into consideration the judgment and decree
passed by the First Appellate Court is contrary to the
provisions of law and considering that if the judgment,
decree is not stayed the appellant will suffer irreparable
loss and the balance of convenience lies in favour of the
appellant, considering the fact that the appellant has
purchased the suit land in the year 1984 and he will not be
able to enjoy fruits of the crop cultivated in the suit land if
the interim protection is not granted, considering that the
prima facie case is in favour of the appellant, the appellant
is entitled for grant of interim protection.
Therefore, considering the totality of the facts, it is
directed that the status quo of the suit land as exists today
shall be maintained till the next date of hearing.
Issue notice to respondents No. 1 to 5, copy of this
order shall also be sent along with the appeal memo. P.F. to
be paid within a week.
From the records of the trial Court and Appellate
Court, it is quite vivid that there is dispute with regard to
demarcation of land, therefore, as per the settled provisions
of law, this Court may consider appointment of
commissioner on the next date of hearing.
List the matter on 5th April, 2022.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
JUDGE
Deshmukh
