Chattisgarh High Court
Manharan Lal Dewangan vs President Nagar Panchayat ... on 8 February, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
SA No. 289 of 2018
Manharan Lal Dewangan s/o Baliram Dewangan, Aged About 48 Years
Businessman, R/o Village Parpodi, Tehsil Saaja, District Bemetara,
Chhattisgarh(Plaintiff) ---- Appellant
Versus
1. President Nagar Panchayat Parpodi Tehsil Saaja, District Bemetara,
Chhattisgarh
2. Chief Municipal Officer, Parpodi, Tehsil Saaja, District Bemetara,
Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Saaja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
4. Collector, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh(Defendants)
---- Respondents
For Appellant :Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate
For Respondent Nos.3 & 4/State:Shri Ravi Pal Maheshwari, Panel Lawyer
Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
Judgment/Order on Board
08.02.2023
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff- Manharan Lal
Dewangan under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC'), questioning the legality and
propriety of the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2018 passed in Civil
Appeal No.7-A/2013, whereby, the learned appellate court while
affirming the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2013 passed by the
Civil Judge, Class-II, Saaja, District Bemetara(CG) in Civil Suit No.12-
A/2011, has dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal. The parties to this appeal
shall be referred hereinafter as per their description before the Court
below.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a suit for declaration of title
and injunction was made by the Plaintiff alleging, inter alia, that
Defendant No.1- Nagar Panchayat, Parpodi has constructed 14 shops
in the Aabadi land bearing Khasra No.276 and has allotted the same to
its allottees. It is pleaded further that one of the shops, i.e. shop No.9
was allotted to one Raju Dewangan, who sold the same to one Arif
Mohammad and that by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated
22.09.2006, he purchased the same from him. It is pleaded further that
since the condition of the shop was dilapidated, therefore, after
obtaining due permission from the concerned authorities, he
reconstructed the same and is running his Hotel business. Further
contention of the Plaintiff is that Defendant No.1-Nagar Panchayat,
Parpodi has issued a notice on 19.04.2011 as per the provisions
prescribed under Section 187 and 223 of the Chhattisgarh
Municipalities Act, 1961 and in response to it, he submitted before the
said authorities the registered deed of sale, but after issuance of the
alleged notice, Defendant No.1 is trying to dispossess him on
27.06.2011, therefore, he has been constrained to institute the suit in
the instant nature.
3. The Defendants have contested the aforesaid claim and Defendants 1
and 2, by submitting their counter claim have pleaded that the shop in
question has been constructed in the said Aabadi land, and therefore,
no one can claim the ownership on it. It is contested further on the
ground that the shop in question was never allotted to said Raju
Dewangan, as pleaded by the Plaintiff, nor was it sold by him to Arif
Mohammad and therefore, he has no alienable interest whatsoever over
it. As such, the Plaintiff has not acquired any interest over the shop in
question nor is entitled to be declared the owner of it based upon the
alleged sale and, therefore, it deserves to be dismissed while claiming
the issuance of injunction against them under their counter claim.
4. From perusal of the record, it appears that the Plaintiff is claiming his
ownership with regard to the shop in question i.e. shop No.9, alleged to
have been constructed by Defendant No.1- Nagar Panchayat, Parpodi
over the said Aabadi land, i.e., Khasra No.276. The said claim has been
made on the basis of the registered deed of sale dated 22.09.2006
purported to have been executed by said Arif Mohammad in his favour,
marked as Ex.P-1. A bare perusal of the alleged deed of sale would,
however, show that it was executed with regard to part of Khasra
No.276/9 admeasuring 15ft x 20ft, total admeasuring 300 sq.ft., which
appears to be distinct from the suit shop alleged to have been
constructed over the said Aabadi land.
5. Be that as it may, the shop in question was alleged to have been
allotted by the said Nagar Panchayat, Parpodi to one Raju Dewangan
and who, in turn, has sold the same to Arif Mohammad and from whom,
the Plaintiff has purchased the same under the said sale (Ex.P-1). But,
surprising enough to observe here that neither the allotment order, if
any, made in favour of said Raju Dewangan was placed on record, nor
the deed of sale by virtue of which, he sold the same to said Arif
Mohammad has been brought to our notice, although the burden to
establish the said fact was heavily upon the Plaintiff as, it is the settled
principles of law that the Plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title could
succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only
by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it. In absence
of cogent and reliable evidence placed on record, it is, therefore, difficult
to hold that the property in question was either allotted to said Raju
Dewangan or the same was sold by him to Plaintiff's vendor, namely,
Arif Mohammad. Consequently, the courts below have not committed
any illegality in dismissing the Plaintiff's claim and, I do not find any
question of law, much less the substantial questions of law which arise
for determination in this appeal.
6. The appeal being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed at the
admission stage itself.
No order as to costs. Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
JUDGE
sunita
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
SA No. 289 of 2018
Manharan Lal Dewangan Versus President Nagar Panchayat Parpodi & Ors.
08/02/2023 Shri Sanjay Patel, counsel for the Appellant.
Shri Ravi Pal Maheshwari, Panel Lawyer for the State/
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Arguments heard on admission.
Judgment/order dictated in open Court. Signed and dated
separately. Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
Judge
sunita
