Smt. Kumkum Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4479 Chatt

                                                                                                     1

                                                                                             NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                           CR No. 52 of 2022

     • Smt. Kumkum Verma W/o Shri Shishir Verma Aged About 40 Years R/
       o Vinoba Nagar, Police Station And Post Civil Limes, Bilaspur, Civil
       And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.          --- Applicant.

                                              Versus

    1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur
       Chhattisgarh.

    2. Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

    3. Joint Director, Sub-Seeder Intelligent Of India, Hn 1522, Opposite
       Government Iti, Post Office Ravi Gram, Shyam Nagar, District Raipur
       Chhattisgarh.                                     --- Respondents
                                    CAUSE TITLE TAKEN FROM CIS PERIPHERY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         For Applicant                       :        Mr. Vikram Kumar Dixit, Adv.
         For Respondent(s)                   :        None

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 14.07.2022

1. This civil revision has been preferred against the order dated

08.03.2022 passed by 9th Civil Judge, Class-2, Bilaspur whereby the

application filed by the applicant/plaintiff under Order 21 Rule 32 r/w

Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code relating to execution of decree

passed in Civil Suit No.139-A/2008 passed by Civil Judge, Class-2,

Bilaspur vide judgment and decree dated 26.09.2008, has been

dismissed.

2. The applicant has filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent

injunction for easementary rights against defendants (respondents

herein) on the ground that the applicant is the owner of the land

situated at Khasra No.44, admeasuring 2140 Sqft., Patwari Halka

No.20, RNM Bilaspur, Block Bilha, Mopka, Tahsil & District Bilaspur,

acquired by registered sale deed dated 10.10.1991. As per the plaintiff,

the seller has left 15 Ft. road on the south side of the land which is

being used by the applicant since long and respondent No.2 is about

to construct the boundary wall on it. It is further submitted that the

applicant has no other approach road, apart from the one above, which

is about to be obstructed by the respondents.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents No.1 & 2

have proceeded ex-parte and respondent No.3 in its written statement

admitted that Khasra No.532/5 admeasuring area one acre was

allotted for construction of office and residential premises, which have

already been constructed, and even the work of boundary wall has

finished. He further submits that the defendant No.3 in its written

statement stated that in the middle of the said land from east to west,

there was 20 ft. road for the use of general public and they are neither

creating any obstruction nor constructing any boundary wall over the

said land. Counsel for the applicant submits that on such averments,

without further examining the case and only on the basis of the

pleadings, the Court below under Order 15 Rule 1 of the CPC has

passed the judgment & decree dated 26.09.2008 in Civil Suit No.139-

A/2008. In the said judgment following relief has been granted to the

applicant/plaintiff:-

^^5- --------A vr% vkns'k 15 fu;e 1 O;-iz-l- ds rgr fuEu vkKfIr ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS%& 1- okfnuh dks ekStk fyafx;kMhg i-g-u- 20] jk-fu-e- fcykliqj] CykWd fcYgk xzke iapk;r eksidk fLFkr izfroknh dz-3 dks vkacfVr Hkw[k.M uacj [email protected] jdck 1-00 ,dM+ Hkw[k.M esa ls fufeZr 20 QhV pkSM+h lM+d rFkk mlds ihNs fodzsrk }kjk NksM+h xbZ 15 QhV lM+d ls vkus tkus dk fuckZ/k vf/kdkj gSA 2- izfroknhx.k okfnuh ds mijksDr lM+d ls vkus tkus gsrq Lo;a ;k vius vU; fdlh vf/kdkjh deZpkjh ;k lacaf/kr O;fDr;ksa ds ek/;e ls fdlh izdkj dk Hkfo"; esa ck/kk mRiUu ugha djsaxsA 3- okn i= ds lkFk layXu vuqlwph v dk utjh uD'kk bl vkKfIr dk ,d vax gksxkA 4- mHk;i{k viuk&viuk okn O;; ogu djsaxsaA**

4. Against the impugned decree, the plaintiff/decree holder has

preferred the execution case and had asserted that due to obstruction

by construction of boundary wall, the road was blocked, therefore, the

executing Court had made certain enquiries and obtained a report from

the Revenue Inspector, Mopka and Revenue Inspector, Sarkanda.

They have jointly submitted their report on 11.02.2022 and opined that

there was no obstruction created by the respondents as the 15 ft. road

has already been left by the seller of the plaintiff, which is situated in

the west direction of the land allotted to respondent No.3 and over the

same, no construction was made. It is further mentioned in their report

that the construction of the respondents had been there since last 30

years and there is an alternate way available to the plaintiff/applicant.

After hearing objection made by the decree holder on such report, the

executing Court had accepted the report and dismissed the execution

petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

documents annexed with the application.

6. It is settled law that the executing Court cannot go beyond the

decree. In the impugned decree, 15 ft. road was only to the extent of

area left by the seller and the material relief has been granted for use

of 20 ft. wide road for the general public. Considering all the

documents, pleadings and the submissions of the learned counsel for

the petitioner, this Court finds that there is no obstruction in the 20 ft.

wide road. Further considering the report dated 11.02.2022, it is

manifest that 15 ft. road which was left on the land by the seller, still

remains and over the said area, there is no obstruction.

7. Therefore, the decree holder failed to prove its case for any

disobedience by the respondents and and this Court is agreed with the

opinion & findings given by the executing Court, which was arrived at

after certain enquiries.

8. For the foregoing, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned

order. This revision sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay