Khubchand Magendra vs Seemant Thakur
2023 Latest Caselaw 320 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                      NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                S.A. No. 535 of 2022
      Khubchand Magendra S/o Shri Nohar Singh Magendra Aged About
       50 Years By Caste Kalar, R/o Village Makadikhuna, P.S. And Tahsil-
       Kanker, District - North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No.
       1)
                                                              ---- Appellant
                                    Versus
     1. Seemant Thakur S/o Shri Gambhir Singh Thakur Aged About 31
        Years R/o Village - Makadikhuna, P.S. And Tahsil - Kanker, District -
        North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff)
     2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Kanker, District North
        Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 2)
                                                           ---- Respondents

For Appellant:                      Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate.
For State/Respondent No.2:          Shri Ravi Maheshwari, Panel Lawyer.


             Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J
                               Order On Board

16.01.2023


        Heard

1. This appeal has been preferred by Defendant No.1 Khubchand

Magendra under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated

01.10.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No.15/2019, whereby the learned

appellate Court, while reversing the judgment and decree dated

28.08.2019 passed by First Civil Judge, Class I, District North Bastar,

Kanker (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.25-A/2014, has decreed the Plaintiff's claim,

while allowing the appeal. The parties shall be referred hereinafter as per

their description before the trial Court.

2. The facts which are essential for the adjudication of this appeal are

that a suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction has

been made by the Plaintiff Seemant Thakur with regard to the property in

question bearing Khasra No.371 admeasuring 0.12 hectare situated at

village Maakdi Khoona, Tehsil Kanker, District North Bastar. According to

the Plaintiff, he purchased the alleged suit property under the registered

deed of sale dated 31.05.2006 (Ex.D.1), purported to have been executed

by one Triloka Bai in his favour. It is pleaded further that Defendant No.1

has encroached the part of his alleged land, i.e., admeasuring 0.02

hectare as described in red color in plaint Schedule 'A', which revealed

from the demarcation report as made by him under Section 129 of the

C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, as according to the said report (Ex.P.4),

0.02 hectare of his alleged land was found to be in illegal possession by

Defendant Khubchand Magendra by constructing a hut over it. The Plaintiff

has, therefore, instituted a suit praying for removal of the alleged

encroachment with regard to 0.02 hectare of his land as described in red

color in plaint Schedule 'A'.

3. While denying the aforesaid claim, it was pleaded by the Defendant

that the alleged encroachment has not been done by him and, in fact, he

was in possession over it even prior to purchase the alleged land by him

and, therefore, the claim as made deserves to be dismissed.

4. From perusal of the record, it appears that by virtue of the

registered deed of sale dated 31.05.2006 (Ex.D.1), the Plaintiff has

admittedly purchased the property bearing Khasra No.371 admeasuring

0.12 hectare from one Triloka Bai. It appears further that after purchasing

the same, he applied for the demarcation of the same before the

concerned revenue authority under Section 129 of the C.G. Land Revenue

Code, 1959 and a case was registered therein as Revenue Case No.15/A-

12/2013-14 and, as per the direction of the concerned revenue authority, a

demarcation was made by the Revenue Inspector on 29.01.2014.

According to the demarcation report (Ex.P.4) and Panchnama (Ex.P.5), it

appears that the alleged demarcation was made in presence of Defendant

Khubhchand Magendra and 0.02 hectare of the Plaintiff's said land was

found to be in illegal possession by him. Pertinently to be noted here

further that the demarcation so made was duly corroborated by the said

Revenue Inspector, namely, Sakharam Kureti (PW2) and the demarcation

so made in presence of the Defendant has not been questioned by him

and, as such, it has attained its finality by efflux of time.

5. What is reflected from perusal of the record that the Defendant

instead of questioning the aforesaid report (Ex.P.4) has got his land

bearing Khasra No.373/2 admeasuring 0.04 hectare demarcated where

none of the persons were found in illegal possession of his land.

6. It appears that upon due consideration of the evidence led by the

parties, particularly, the demarcation report (Ex.P.4) and, the Panchnama

(Ex.P.5), vis-a-vis, the statement of the said Revenue Inspector (PW2), the

lower appellate Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the Plaintiff's

alleged land, i.e., 0.02 hectare of Khasra No.371 total admeasuring 0.12

hectare as described in red color in plaint Schedule 'A' was illegally

encroached by the Defendant by constructing a hut over it. Although, at the

time of passing a decree, it appears that owing to clerical mistake, it was

declared by the lower appellate Court that the Plaintiff is the owner of land

bearing Khasra No.371 admeasuring 0.14 hectare instead of 0.12 hectare

of land as there was no dispute exists between the parties to this effect.

7. In view of the forgoing discussions, I do not find any question of law,

much less the substantial questions of law which arise for determination in

this Appeal. The Appeal being devoid of merits is, accordingly, dismissed

at the admission stage itself.

No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE

Nikita