1 2025:CGHC:45618 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 468 of 2022 Vrindawati S/o Shri Panchram Aged About 35 Years Caste Gada, Occupation Gada, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Kantajhariya, Polt Katarimaal, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Appellant /Plaintiff versus 1 - Reshamlal S/o Shri Panchram Aged About 45 Years Caste Gada, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Kantajhariya Post Katrimaal, Tahsil Gharghoda, 2 - Ramwati D/o Shri Panchram Aged About 29 Years Caste Gada, Occupation Agriculturidt 3 - Mayawati D/o Shri Panchram Aged About 26 Years W/o Shri Babulal, Caste Gada, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Bicchinara, Post Raikera, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - Sukmoti D/o Shri Panchram W/o Shri Babulal, Caste Gada, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Ghatgaon, Post Lailunga, Tahsiltamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondents / defendants {Cause title is taken from Case Information System} For Appellant : Mr. A.N. Bhakta, Advocate. For Respondent No. : Ms. Mandvi Bhardwaj, Panel Lawyer. 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 08/09/2025 Heard on admission. 1. This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the impugned judgment and decree dated 20th July, 2022 passed by Upper District Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 27-A/2021, affirming the judgment & decree dated 03.07.2021 passed by Civil Judge, Class-1, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. A/71/2017, whereby, civil suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for declaration of her title and grant of possession over the suit land has been dismissed. [For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their status shown in the plaint]. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / plaintiff would submit that late Karmu, who was maternal Grand Father (ukuk) of plaintiff, was Kotwar of village Katajhariya, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raipur in the year 1974-75. Subsequently, he fell sick, therefore, he had resigned from the aforesaid post and subsequently he expired on 28.7.2006, thereafter, one Bhagirathi has been appointed on the post of Kotwar of village Katajhariya in his place. It is further submitted that when maternal grandfather of appellant / plaintiff was working as Kotwar, at that time, he had been given suit land mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ annexed with the plaint as Kotwari land/ Service land, but after resignation of maternal grandfather of plaintiff from the post of Kotwar, suit land has been taken back by the State authority from him, therefore, the plaintiff filed instant civil suit seeking declaration of her title and grant of possession over the suit 3 land. He further submits that the plaintiff had also filed an application for her appointment to the post of Kotwar of village Katajhariya, but the same has been rejected and one Bhagirathi has been appointed on the said post. He further submits that aforesaid rejection order has been challenged by the plaintiff by filing appeal before concerned Revenue Authority, hence, he prayed that instant appeal may be admitted for hearing on the proposed substantial questions of law. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 / State while supporting the judgment & decree passed by both the Courts would submit that since suit land was allotted to maternal grandfather (ukuk) of the plaintiff as Service Land / Kotwari land, but only on this count, the plaintiff cannot seek title over it and now her maternal grandfather is not a Kotwar of the Village, therefore, she also cannot seek possession on it. Hence, it is prayed that instant appeal is liable to be rejected. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of both the courts below with utmost circumspection. 5. Undisputedly, the suit land pertains to the government land/kotwari land, which was earlier allotted to maternal grandfather of the plaintiff as Service Land, as he was Kotwar of village Katajharia, but counsel for appellant/plaintiff fairly conceded that because of ill health, maternal grandfather of plaintiff has resigned from the post of Kotwar and another person namely Bhagirathi has been appointed on the said post. In such a situation, being Sewa Bhumi, the plaintiff is no where entitled to get decree of title over the suit land and even she is also not entitled to get possession on it. Since the suit land is a Government land, therefore, plaintiff has no right in any manner to get relief sought for by her. As such, the finding recorded by both the courts below are finding of fact 4 based on material available on record, which does not call for any interference in the instant appeal. 6. In view of above, no substantial question of law is found to be involved in this appeal. Consequently, second appeal, being sans merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. No cost(s). 7. A decree be drawn up accordingly. 8. Pending applications (s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.09.10 18:03:49 +0530