1 2025:CGHC:30788 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 584 of 2025 1 - Yugal Kishore Sharma S/o Late Gokul Prasad Sharma Aged About 60 Years Former Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Nomchi, R/o Village- Gomchi, Post- Tenduwa, Tahsil - Dharsinwa, District- Raipur (C.G.), Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kanhera, District- Raipur (C.G.), (Def. No. 1) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chintamani Tiwari S/o Late Bularam Tiwari Aged About 75 Years R/o Village- Gomchi, Tahsil - Dharsinwa, District- Raipur (C.G.), (Defendants) 2 - Tameshwar Tiwari S/o Late Bularam Tiwari Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Gomchi, Tahsil - Dharsinwa, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Deendayal Nishad S/o Biluram Nishad Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Gomchi, Tahsil - Dharsinwa, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Bhushan Nishad S/o Shri Sukalwa Nishad Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Gomchi, Tahsil - Dharsinwa, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Daulat Nishad S/o Shri Kalyan Nishad Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Gomchi, Tahsil - Dharsinwa, District- Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Gram Panchayat, Gomchi Through The Sarpanch/secretary, Gram Panchayat, Gomchi, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.07 14:02:15 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 07-07-2025 1) Heard on admission. 2) Petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order passed by learned First Civil Judge–Senior Division, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 307-A/2021 dated 02.04.2025 whereby the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC moved by petitioner has been rejected. 3) Facts of the present case are that respondents No. 1 to 5 [plaintiffs No. 1 to 5] filed civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 280, ad-measuring 0.631 hectare out of total 3.484 hectares situated at Village Gomchi, P.H. No. 33, Tehsil & District – Raipur (C.G.). The subject land is government land recorded as grassland ; plaintiffs pleaded that suit land may be declared as Nistari Land and petitioner [defendant No. 1] may be restrained from interfering. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement ; issues were framed ; plaintiffs led their evidence and thereafter, application under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC was moved by defendant No. 1 to pass judgment at preliminary stage on the basis of admission made by plaintiffs in their plaint as well as in evidence. The application was replied by plaintiffs and thereafter, learned Trial Court rejected the application. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is clear admission in the plaint as well as in evidence of plaintiffs to the effect that suit land is government land and they have filed civil suit without service of notice under Section 80 of CPC, therefore the relief with regard to declaration under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 is not 3 maintainable and on the basis of that admission, final judgment may be passed under provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC. He prays to allow this petition. 5) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the material available on record. 6) Evidently, plaintiffs have not claimed any personal right over the suit property. They have simply sought a relief to declare the government land as Nistari Land and such declaration may be granted and defendants may be restrained from interfering with the government land. 7) The learned Trial Court while dealing with application moved by defendant No. 1 recorded findings to the effect that–(i) as plaintiffs have not claimed any relief against State Government, therefore notice under Section 80 of CPC was not required and (ii) plaintiffs have denied the averments made in application moved under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC and there is no clear admission in this regard. 8) Taking into consideration the above-discussed findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, averments made in the plaint and its reply, in the opinion of this Court no case is made out to interfere with the order impugned. 9) Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya