Chattisgarh High Court
Bir Singh Dadsena Dead And Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Others 3 ... on 24 October, 2018
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
SECOND APPEAL No. 46 of 2005
Bir Singh Dadsena (dead) through LRs :-
1. Smt. Vimala Bai Wd/o Bir Singh Dadsena, aged about 82 years,
Occupation - House Wife, R/o Village Atharahguri, P.S. Pithora,
Tahsil and District Mahasamund (C.G.)
2. Smt. Dhansir Bai Wd/o Bir Singh (Faut), R/o Village Atharahguri, P.S.
Pithora, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (C.G.)
3. Lakshaman S/o Bir Singh Dadsena, ageed about 57 years,
Occupation - Govt. Service, R/o Village Atharahguri, P.S. Pithora,
Tahsil and District Mahasamund (C.G.)
4. Ramji S/o Bir Singh Dadsena, aged about 45 years, Occupation -
Agriculture, R/o Village Atharahguri, P.S. Pithora, Tahsil and District
Mahasamund (C.G.)
5. Shankar S/o Bir Singh Dadsena, aged about 43 years, Occupation -
Agriculture, R/o Village Atharahguri, P.S. Pithora, Tahsil and District
Mahasamund (C.G.)
6. Smt. Jayanti Bai D/o Bir Singh Dadsena, aged about 42 years,
Occupation - House wife, R/o Village Atharahguri, P.S. Pithora, Tahsil
and District Mahasamund (C.G.)
7. Tulsi Ram s/o Bir Singh Dadsena, aged about 37 years, Occupation
- Advocacy, R/o Village Atharahguri, P.S. Pithora, Tahsil and District
Mahasamund (C.G.)
8. Krishna Kumar S/o Bir Singh Dadsena, aged about 30 years,
Occupation - Milk Diary, R/o Village Atharahguri, P.S. Pithora, Tahsil
and District Mahasamund (C.G.)
9. Yashwant S/o Bir Singh Dadsena, aged about 27 years, R/o Village
Atharahguri, P.S. Pithora, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (C.G.)
---- Appellants / plaintiffs
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Raipur (C.G.)
2. Main Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pithora, Tahsil
Mahasamund, Dist. Mahasamund, C.G.
3. Gram Panchayat Bhithidih, through Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat
Bhithidih, Develop Block and P.S. Pithora Tahsil and District
Mahasamund. ---- Respondents/ Defendants
For Appellant : Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1/State : Shri Arun Sao, Dy. A. G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 24/10/18
1. This is plaintiffs' second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 questioning the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court whereby the First Appellate court has affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit holding that the suit tank is vested with the State Government by order dated 11.01.1973 passed by the Additional Collector, Raipur.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts below are perverse and contrary to law and gives rise to substantial questions of law for determination.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants.
4. The suit pond area 3.04 acre in Village Patperpali, District Mahasamund was vested with the State Government by order of Additional Collector dated 11.01.1973 and without challenging the said order, suit was filed for declaration of title and possession. The trial Court dismissed the suit stating that the suit tank has already been vested with the State Government as per the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 11.01.1973 that has not been challenged by the plaintiffs. The said finding of the trial Court has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court.
5. As the suit tank is already vested with the State Government and the order of vesting has not been challenged by the plaintiffs therefore, the two Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit and particularly in view of the fact that under Section 257(y) of the Land Revenue Code, 1959, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is also barred. As such, I do not find any perversity or illegality much less for determination of substantial questions of law in this second appeal.
6. Accordingly, the second appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka