1 2025:CGHC:40455 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 601 of 2019 1 - Mohan Prasad Panigrahi (Died Through Lrs) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 04-04-2025 1.1 - Smt. Rikha Devi Wd/o Late Mohan Prasad Panigrahi Aged About 79 Years R/o Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. - Bastar Chhattisgarh 1.2 - Ved Prakash Panigrahi S/o Late Mohan Prasad Panigrahi Aged About 52 Years R/o Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. - Bastar Chhattisgarh. 1.3 - Smt. Beena Panigrahi W/o Late Umesh Panigrahi Aged About 54 Years R/o Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. - Bastar Chhattisgarh. 1.4 - Uttam Panigrahi S/o Late Umesh Panigrahi Aged About 40 Years R/o Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. - Bastar Chhattisgarh. 1.5 - Hemant Panigrahi S/o Late Umesh Panigrahi Aged About 34 Years R/o Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. - Bastar Chhattisgarh. 1.6 - Manmohini Panigrahi Wd/o Late Dinesh Panigrahi Aged About 48 Years R/o Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. - Bastar Chhattisgarh. 1.7 - Thailesh Panigrahi S/o Late Dinesh Panigrahi Aged About 30 Years R/o Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. - Bastar Chhattisgarh. 1.8 - Swati Panigrahi D/o Late Dinesh Panigrahi Aged About 28 Years R/o Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. - Bastar Chhattisgarh. 1.9 - Jogendra Panigrahi S/o Late Dinesh Panigrahi Aged About 37 Years R/o Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. - Bastar Chhattisgarh. 1.10 - Dipika Panigrahi D/o Late Dinesh Panigrahi Aged About 25 Years R/o Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. - Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Appellants. versus 2 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector Bastar, Jagdalpur District - Bastar Chhattisgarh. 2. Shri C. P. Baghel S/o Shri Mitthu Baghel Aged About 52 Years Tahsildar Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For appellants. : Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate. For respondent No.1/State. : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumas Vyas) Judgment on Board 12/08/2025 1. The appellant/plaintiff has preferred this Second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 26-4-2019 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Jagdalpur, District Bastar in Civil Appeal No. 17- A’/17 by which the learned First Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 9-8-2017 passed by 1st Civil Judge, Class-1, Jagdalpur, District Bastar in Civil Suit No. 10-A/2012 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and loss of damages caused by the defendant has been dismissed. 2. Heard on admission. 3. The brief facts reflected from the plait averments are that; (a) the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that the order dated 14-5-2012 and 15-5-2012 passed by the defendant No.2 Tahsildar are bad-in-law, to declare that the plaintiff has right over the suit property and for issuance of permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering in his possession along with damages. (b) It is case of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the land situated at village Haatakchora bearing Khasra No. 5/2/2, 5/3/1, 9/9 & 9/10 which comes to 0.44 acres and surrounding this property boundary wall has been constructed which is in disputed land bearing Khasra No. 16 area 0.30 dismil (hereinafter 3 referred to “suit property”). It is also case of the plaintiff that the said village Haatakchora has now been merged in the Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur. (c) It is also case of the plaintiff that on the basis of report given by the Patwari, Tehsildar Jagdalpur registered Revenue Case No. 87-A-68/11-12 and issued a show cause notice to the plaintiff, to which the plaintiff replied on 28-4-2012. Defendant No. 2 Tahsildar mentioned in the order sheet dated 28.04.2012 that the suit land has been merged with the Municipal Corporation in the year 2003-04, due to which the provisions of Section 248 CG Land Revenue Code are not applicable. Thereafter, on 14-5-2012 again a notice was issued to the plaintiff by respondent No.2 wherein the plaintiff has appeared before the Tahsildar on 15-5-2012 and the respondent No.2 without affording an opportunity of hearing, has removed the boundary wall constructed on the disputed land due to which the plaintiff suffered loss of Rs.25,000/-. (d) It is also case of the plaintiff that since the boundary wall has been damaged, therefore, he suffered loss of Rs.25,000/-, as such he has prayed for declaration that all the proceedings initiated by Tahsildar on 14-5-2012 and 15-5-2012 are bad-in-law, illegal and without jurisdiction. 4. The defendant has filed its reply to the plaint averments denying the allegations that the suit land belongs to Municipal Corporation which is a Government land, therefore, they have rightly removed the encroachment and has prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. From the submissions and on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court has framed as many as six issues and issue No.1 is relevant which is extracted as under. D;k izfr0 dz0 2 rglhynkj txnyiqj }kjk jktLo izdj.k dzekad & 87@v&68@2011&2012 esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad & 14@5@2012 ,oa 15@5@2012 voS/k ,oa 'kwU; gS\ 4 6. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record has dismissed the suit by recording its finding that if the plaintiff is aggrieved by the orders dated 14-5-2012 and 15-5-2012 passed by the Tahsildar, he has alternative remedy of filing an appeal or revision under the Land Revenue Code,1959, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. Similarly, on merit a finding has been recorded by the learned trial Court that the plaintiff himself has pleaded that he has been given an opportunity to appear and thereafter the order has been passed, which is in accordance with the principle of natural justice, as such issue No.1 has been answered against the plaintiff. Similarly, learned trial Court has also decided the issue Nos. 2 and 3 against the plaintiff and has dismissed the suit. 7. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court and the learned First Appellate Court vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 26-4-2019 affirmed the finding recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved with the said impugned judgment and decree, the appellant/plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that both the courts below have erred in not considering the principle of natural justice and the plaintiff has in clear terms stated that no opportunity of hearing was granted to him, still they have dismissed the suit. He would further submit that the findings recorded by the courts below are perverse and are not based on legally admissible evidence. Thus, he would pray for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the courts below. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the learned both the courts below after appreciating the evidence and material on record have rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 5 10.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused impugned judgment and decree annexed with the appeal memo. 11.Considering the aforesaid submissions, it is relevant to go through the provisions of Section 257 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code which clearly provides exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Authority. Section 257 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code reads as under. “257. Exclusive jurisdiction of revenue authorities. Except as otherwise provided in this Code, or in any other enactment for the time being in force, no Civil Court shall entertain any suit instituted or application made to obtain a decision or order on any matter which the State Government, the Board, or any Revenue Officer is by this Code, empowered to determine, decide or dispose of, and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of this provision, no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters :- (a)[ any decision regarding any right under sub-section (1) of Section 57 between the State Government and any person.] [Inserted by C.G. Act No. 32 of 2013, dated 16.8.2013.][(a-1)] [Renumbered '(a)' by C.G. Act No. 32 of 2013, dated 16.8.2013.] any decision regarding the purpose to which land is appropriated under Section 59; (b)any question as to the validity or effect of the notification of a revenue survey or any question as to the term of a settlement; (c)any claim to modify a decision determining abadi made by a Settlement Officer or Collector; (d)any claim against the State Government to hold land free of land revenue, or at less than the fair assessment, or to be assigned in whole or in part the land revenue assessed on any land; (e)the amount of land revenue assessed or reassessed under this Code or any other enactment for the time being in force; (f)any claim against the State Government to have any entry made in any land records or to have any such entry omitted or amended . (g)any question regarding the demarcation of boundaries or fixing of boundary marks under Chapter X; (h)any claim against the State Government connected with or arising out of, the collection of land revenue or the recovery of any sum which is recoverable as land revenue under this Code or any other enactment; 6 (i)any claim against the State Government or against a Revenue Officer for remission or suspension of land revenue, or for a declaration that crops have failed in any year; (j)any decision regarding forfeiture in cases of certain transfers under Section 166; (k)ejectment of a lesser of a bhumiswami under sub-section (4) of Section 168; (l)any claim to set aside transfer by a bhumiswami under subsection (1) of Section 170 and clauses (a) and (b) of sub- section (2) of Section 170-A;(l-1) any matter covered under Section 170-B. (m)ejectment of a Government lessee under Section 182. ;(n)resumption by a bhumiswami of land held by an occupancy tenant under Section 189 and the fixation of rent of land left, if any, with the occupancy tenant; (o)claims by occupancy tenants for conferral of the rights of bhumiswami under Section 190 (p)restoration of possession to an occupancy tenant under Section 191. ,(q)termination of tenancy of an occupancy tenant under Section 193; (r)any claim to set aside transfer by an occupancy tenant under Section 197 ;(s)the imposition of penalty on a bhumiswami under Section 200 (t)suspension and remission of rent under Section 201, (u)any decision regarding reinstatement of wrongfully ejected occupancy tenant under Section 202; (v)amount payable as compensation under sub-section (3) of Section 209, confirmation of the scheme for consolidation of holdings under Section 210, transfers of rights in carrying out the scheme under Section 213 and assessment and apportionment of costs of consolidation of holdings under Section 215; (w)any claim to modify any entry in the Nistar Patrak;(w-i) any decision regarding penalty under Section 248, for unauthorisedly taking possession of land .(x)any decision regarding reinstatement of a bhumiswami improperly dispossessed under Section 250; (x-i) any decision regarding confinement in civil prison under Section 250-A;(x-ii) any decision regarding delivery of actual 7 possession of land to the bhumiswami or the Government Lessee under Section 250 B .(y)any decision regarding vesting of tanks in State Government under Section 251 and any claim against the State Government arising thereunder; z)any claim against the State Government to set aside or modify any premium, penalty, cess or rate imposed or assessed under the provisions of this Code or any other enactment for the time being in force;(z-1) any claim against the State Government arising under Section 255 regarding prescription of standard cultivation and management;(z-2) any claim to compel the performance of any duty imposed by this Code on any Revenue Officer or other officer appointed under this Cod” Section 247 (w)(i) specifically provides any decision regarding penalty under Section 248 of the Land Revenue Code. Section 247 (w)(i) reads as under: “(w-1) any decision regarding penalty under Section 248, for unauthorizedly taking possession of land” 12.From perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is quite vivid that the subject matter for which suit was filled falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Court and in view of the specific bar, both the courts below have not committed any illegality in dismissing the suit. Learned courts below have also recorded concurrent finding of facts that the plaintiff is unable to prove that he is having title over the suit property as he has exhibited documents P1, P2 and P3 which are records pertaining to title of the property and the defendants have submitted EX.D1 and D2 which are Khasra for the year 2012-13 and 2016-17. From bare perusal of these documents it is quite vivid that the suit land situated at R.N.M. Tahsil Jagdalpur District Bastar is recorded as garden and use of that land has been recorded as Mango Garden which clearly establishes that the suit land is recorded in the revenue record for public purpose as defined under Section 237 of the Land Revenue Code, therefore, the Tahsildar has not committed any irregularity in removing the encroachment. As such, both the courts below have rightly dismissed the suit after appreciating the evidence, material on record and considering the relevant provisions of law which does not suffer from perversity or illegality , no substantial question of law is required to be answered by this Court which 8 is sine qua non for admission of the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is liable to be dismissed at admission stage itself and accordingly it is dismissed. 13.A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.09.19 12:49:04 +0530