Rajesh vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 688 Chatt

                                       1

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                 Order Sheet

                               SA No. 355 of 2021

                       Rajesh Versus State Of Chhattisgarh




02/02/2023         Shri Uday Pratap Singh Sahu, counsel for the Appellants.

                Shri Ravi Pal Maheshwari, P.L. for the State/Respondents No.

1 to 3.

Argument heard.

Order dictated in open Court. Signed and dated separately.

SD/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

Tumane

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

SA No.355 of 2021

1. Rajesh S/o Late Shri Babulal, Aged About 45 Years Caste Kenwat, R/o Village Pendra, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Presently District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh., District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

2. Smt. Shyamlata, W/o Late Shri Shatrughan, Aged About 45 Years Caste Kenwat, R/o Village Pendra, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Presently District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh., District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

3. Ashish, S/o Late Shri Shatrughan, Aged About 40 Years Caste Kenwat, R/o Village Pendra, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Presently District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh., District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

4. Smt. Savitri Bai, W/o Late Shri Bharat Kenwat, Aged About 45 Years Caste Kenwat, R/o Village Pendra, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Presently District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh., District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

5. Aarati, D/o Late Shri Bharat Kenwat, Aged About 27 Years Caste Kenwat, R/o Village Pendra, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Presently District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh., District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

---- Appellants/Plaintiffs

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Presently District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi (Chhattisgarh), District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

2. Tahsildar Pendra, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Presently District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

3. Patwari Village Pendra, P.H.No. 26, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Presently District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

4. Chief Municipal Officer, Pendra Nagar Panchayat Pendra, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Presently District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh., District : Gaurela- Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

5. Smt. Dashodiya, W/o Late Shri Mahendra Gupta, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Dhobahar, Tahsil Marwahi, District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh, District : Gaurela-Pendra-

         Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

      6. Smt.      Sakul      (Died)     Through       Legal     Heirs-

(A) Smt. Babali, D/o Kunjanlal Gupta, Aged About 35 Years (B) Manish Gupta, S/o Kunjanlal Gutpa, Aged About 33 Years (C) Smt. Ritu Gupta, D/o Kunjanlal Gupta, Aged About 30 Years (D) Smt. Rinku Gupta, D/o Kunjanlal Gupta, Aged About 28 Years (E) Mukesh Gupta, S/o Kunjanlal Gupta, Aged About 26 Years

All are resident of Village Dhobahar, Tahsil Marwahi, District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh.

7. Smt. Malti, W/o Late Shri Mahendra Gupta, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Pendra, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Presently District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh., District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

8. Smt. Saroj, D/o Late Shri Mahendra Gupta, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Pendra, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Presently District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh., District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

9. Manoj, S/o Late Shri Mahendra Gupta, Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Pendra, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Presently District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh., District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

10. Ajju, S/o Late Shri Mahendra Gupta, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Pendra, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Presently District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh., District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

11. Smt. Savita, D/o Late Shri Mahendra Gupta, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Pendra, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Presently District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh., District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

12. Smt. Alavi, D/o Late Shri Mahendra Gupta, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Pendra, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Presently District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh., District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

13. Smt. Archana, D/o Late Shri Mahendra Gupta, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Pendra, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Presently District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh., District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

14. Akku, S/o Late Shri Mahendra Gupta, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Pendra, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Presently District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh., District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents/Defendants

(Cause title is taken from C.I.S.)

Present:-

Shri Uday Pratap Singh Sahu, counsel for the appellants. Shri Ravipal Maheshwari, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.1 to 3

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board 02/02/2023

1. Heard on admission.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs under Section

100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 questioning the legality and

propriety of judgment and decree dated 12.11.2021 passed by the

Additional District Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur in Civil Appeal

No.45-A/2016, whereby the lower appellate Court, while affirming the

judgment and decree dated 23.09.2015 passed by the Civil Judge

Class-I, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.7-A/2009, has

dismissed the appeal. The parties shall be referred hereinafter as per

the descriptions before the Court below.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-Babulal

(Since deceased, now represented by his legal representatives)

instituted a suit claiming declaration of title and injunction with regard to

the property in question bearing Khasra No.2520/1-M admeasuring 2

acre, situated at Village Pendra, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur.

According to the plaintiff, the said property was given to him by the

then Landlord, namely, Lal Amolak Singh on 01.04.1949 by executing a

patta in his favour and after obtaining the same as such, has

constructed a house over it. It is pleaded further that in order to obtain

the revenue papers mutated, the said Landlord, namely, Lal Amolak

Singh has executed a gift deed on 14.08.1959 in his favour with regard

to the said property and based upon it, he has obtained the revenue

papers mutated in his name. Further contention of the plaintiff is that

the mutation so made in his favour was deleted at the instance of the

defendants without informing him, therefore, he has been constrained

to institute a suit in the instant nature.

4. The defendants, while contesting the aforesaid claim, stated in

their written statement that the property in question is the government

land, which is recorded as Hindus' Graveyard in Nistar Patrak for the

year 1953-1954. It is contended further that since the property in

question belongs to the State Government, therefore, it can neither be

given on patta by said Lal Amolak Singh nor by executing a gift deed,

as upon the enforcement of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of

Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950,

the right, title and interest of Landlords/Proprietors have been vested

with the State Government. The claim of the plaintiff as made is,

therefore, liable to be dismissed.

5. What is, therefore, reflected from the averments made in the

plaint, the plaintiff-Babulal (since deceased, now represented by his

legal representatives) has claimed his right, title and interest over the

property in question bearing Khasra No.2520/1-M admeasuring 2 acre,

situated at the said Village on the basis of the lease deed/Patta dated

01.09.1949 (Ex.P-24), purported to have been executed by the then

Landlord Lal Amolak Singh, in his favour and tried to set up his right by

virtue of the gift deed dated 14.08.1958 (Ex.P-17) executed by the said

Lal Amolak Singh. Both the documents are admittedly to be

unregistered, therefore, no right, title or interest would thus confer upon

the plaintiff as the documents are required to be registered

compulsorily under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

6. That apart, it appears that Namantaran Panji (Ex.P-20) as

submitted by the plaintiff would show that the name of the plaintiff-

Babulal was recorded on the basis of Ikrarnama, said to have been

executed by said Lal Amolak Singh's son, namely, Kunwar Anant

Pratap Singh on 17.09.1981. It is, however, settled principles of law

that the entries made in the revenue papers would not confer any right,

title or interest upon the plaintiff based upon those entries. It, thus,

appears that neither the alleged patta (Ex.P-24) was registered nor the

alleged gift deed (Ex.P-17). Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim their

interest over the property in question by virtue of these documentary

evidence.

7. Further, a bare perusal of the averments made in para-7 of the

plaint, the plaintiff is trying to set up his claim on the basis of adverse

possession, which, however, cannot be accepted based upon the facts

involved herein, as the plaintiff is claiming his ownership on the basis of

the aforesaid documentary evidence, therefore, both the pleas are, in

fact, destructive with each other.

8. In view of the aforesaid background, the Courts below, after due

and proper appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, have rightly

arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff has not acquired any kind of his

interest over the property in question and, I do not find any infirmity in

the same so as to call for any interference in this appeal.

9. Consequently, no question of law, much less the substantial

questions of law, arise for determination in this appeal. The appeal

being devoid of merit is, accordingly dismissed at admission stage

itself.

No order as to costs.

SD/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

Tumane