The Chhattisgarh High Court was dealing with a second appeal filed by Gram panchayat in a land dispute involving an encroacher.
The facts of the case were that a government land (grass land) was reserved for public utility and Primary Health Centre, Jaimura has already been constructed by Gram Panchayat, appellant herein. The original plaintiff- respondent claimed title & adverse possession on the basis of his long and continuous possession and claimed declaration of title, permanent injunction and demolition of Primary Health Centre constructed by Gram Panchayat.
The trial Court held that the suit land is in possession of the plaintiff for last 90 years, thus, he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. On appeal filed by the appellants/defendants, the first appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The second appeal was filed by the appellants/defendants in the High Court.
The substantial question of law involved was whether both the Courts below were unjustified in holding that original plaintiff have perfected their title over the suit land by way of adverse possession.
The bench presided by Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal observed that it is quite vivid that the suit land is recorded as grass land in revenue records but in remarks column name of the plaintiff has been recorded as encroacher. The bench noted that the entries in the remarks column was not made in accordance with the rules and plaintiff relied on Khasra entries made by Patwari but failed to examine him.
The High Court held that the two Courts below committed an illegality by holding that the plaintiff has proved his possession on the basis of entry made by the patwari in remarks column, which the patwari is not even authorized to record. Thus, finding of continuous and long possession recorded by both the Courts below is perverse.
Moreover, relying upon Supreme Court judgement in the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Ors. v. Manjit Kaur and Ors., the High Court held that from the land reserved for public utility such as road/hospital etc., the right based on adverse possession would not accrue.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of both the Courts below and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.
Read the Judgement:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
