NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR S.A. No. 581 of 2017 Amit Kumar Shah, S/o Rajeshwar Prasad Sao, aged about 34 years, R/o Krishna Nagar Ward, Juna Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ..................(Plaintiff) --- Appellant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Development Block Education Officer, Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division No.1, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ..........(Defendant) --- Respondents For Appellant : Shri Aman Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondents : Shri Anand Gupta, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 14. 05.2026 1. The instant second appeal has been filed under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No.27-A/2017 by the VI Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.). 2. Parties are referred to their status before the trial Court. 3. By the judgment and decree impugned, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff filed under section 96 of the CPC and the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2017 passed by the X Civil Judge Class - II, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 132-A/2016 was affirmed. 4. Fact in Short – Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect to suit property comprised in piece of Khasra No.1528 area ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.05.22 18:16:09 +0530 -2- 0.51 acres situated at Village – Malhaar, P.H. No. 35/42, Tehsil – Masturi, Bilaspur (C.G.). As per the further pleadings, the petitioner is the title holder and is in possession of the suit property, where he is cultivating vegetables. He is in peaceful possession of the suit property. On the instructions of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, defendant No. 3 encroached upon the land of the petitioner and constructed a Government Advanced Girls’ Middle School building thereon. When the petitioner came to know about this fact on 31.03.2016, he visited Malhar. The petitioner thereafter contacted the office of defendant Nos. 2 and 3, whereupon he was informed that the school building had been constructed pursuant to official orders. Subsequently, when the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Tehsildar, Masturi, he was allegedly told that the authorities were at liberty to do whatever they wanted. Thus, the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction was filed. The defendants remained ex-parte before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court framed the following points for determination:- S.No. वाद्ቚ्቞ निष्क्ቧ 1. क्या वादी को मौजा मौल्हार प.हा.न. 35/42 रजास्वा र.निन.मौ. वा तहा. मौस्तर, जिजाला निलासपर छ.ग. ቝኌ त खसर न. 1528. रको 0.51 एकोड पर स्वात्च वा आधि(पत्या (र घो नि*त निकोया जावा+। हा-। 2. क्या वादी वादी्ቇस्त भूधिमौ पर हास्तቌኔ+प निकोया+ जान+ हा+त ्ቚनितवादीगण को+ निवारु्ቍ ई निन*+(ሺኋ ्ቚप्त कोरन+ को अधि(कोर हा9। ्ቚमौणिणत नहा 3. सहायात एवा वादी ्ቤया ? को निडको 09 को+ अनसर वादी को वादी आशि=को रुप स+ स्वाको> त। 5. In order to prove his case, the defendant examined himself and Ramnaryan Verma and exhibited four documents, i.e revenue records. Based on the evidence available on record and the documents exhibited, the learned trial Court decided Issue No. 1 relating to declaration and possession in the -3- affirmative. With regard to Issue No. 2 concerning permanent injunction, the learned trial Court held that no documentary evidence, demarcation report, or other material was placed on record to establish that the school building had been constructed over the plaintiff’s land and that the same was surrounded by a boundary wall. Thus, issue No. 2 was decided against the appellant, and ultimately, the civil suit was partly allowed. 6. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred a first appeal before the learned First Appellate Court. By the impugned judgment and decree, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed, and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court were affirmed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once the learned trial Court had recorded a categorical finding in favour of the plaintiff with regard to title and possession over the suit property, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to grant permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, he submits that both the Courts committed an error in not granting a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, he submits that the substantial question of law, as proposed in the memorandum of appeal, may be considered and formulated, and the appeal may be admitted. 8. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 10. The first issue pertained to the declaration of title and possession over the suit property. On the basis of the evidence and documents available on record, the said issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff. So far as issue No.2 with regard to grant of permanent injunction is concerned, the learned trial Court, in paragraph 8 of the judgment, gave a categorical finding that no documentary evidence, including photographs or a demarcation report, was available to -4- establish that the school building had been constructed over the plaintiff’s property and that the same had been encircled by a boundary wall. There is no other document available to demonstrate the actual location of the plaintiff’s land, nor is there any evidence on record to establish that the said school was constructed over the land of the plaintiff. In absence of such documents, particularly the demarcation report, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court does not appear to be perverse or contrary to the record. For admitting the appeal under section 100 of the CPC, involvement enhanced to be substantial question of is necessary as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1314 and in the matter of Chandrabhan (Deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Saraswati & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273. As no substantial question of law is involved which is sine qua non for admitting the appeal, the present appeal thus sans merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the opinion of this Court, both the Courts have not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned judgment and decree. 12. Appeal thus fails and dismissed accordingly. 13. Decree be drawn accordingly, no order as to cost. 14. All pending applications are disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge -/ Ashish