Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20855 (CHH)

Mahesh Kumar Pal @ Raju Gadariya v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Raipur

SA/488/2017 · 2025-02-20

Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:9020 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 488 of 2017 1 - Mahesh Kumar Pal @ Raju Gadariya S/o Shri Samaruram Gadriya, Aged About 39 Years R/o Near Ekta School, Village Kanpa (Mova) Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh .............Plaintiff ... Appellant versus 1 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Zone Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Zone No.2, Pandri, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..............Defendants ... Respondents For Appellant : None For State : Ms. Neeta T. Thawani, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 20/02/2025 1. Learned counsel for the State/respondent submits that the appellant/plaintiff is an encroacher and he has filed the Civil Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of Najul Land PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.02.24 10:22:12 +0530 2 admeasuring area 15 x 8= 120 Sqft., on which, he has been doing a small business of tailoring by installing a Cart (thela). 2. After going through the record, it is explicit that the appellant/plaintiff has no valid document in respect of title and he is only an encroacher, therefore, in my view, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the Suit, which has been affirmed by the Appellate Court. 3. As no one has appeared on behalf of the appellant at the time of consideration of the Appeal on admission and further considering that this Appeal involves no question of law much less substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the CPC, this Court is of the opinion that the findings recorded by both the Court below are based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and there is no illegality or perversity in the same. 4. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed resulting in upholding of the judgment and decree of both the Court below. 5. Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution as well as on merits. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka