1 2025:CGHC:52996 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 638 of 2018 1 - Kodiya Meshram S/o Late Buddhu Meshram Aged About 75 Years R/o Rajeev Nagar, Chhirpani, Dongargarh, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jeewan Meshram S/o Kodiya Meshram Aged About 55 Years R/o Rajeev Nagar, Chhirpani, Dongargarh, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Shri Bamleshwari Mandir Trust Dongargarh Through President Shri Bamleshwari Mandir Trust Samiti, Dongargarh, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Public Works Department, Through Sub Divisional Officer, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Deputy G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 30/10/2025 1. The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.06.2018, passed by learned VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.31 16:52:03 +0530 2 Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, in Civil Appeal No. 03-A/2016, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs has been dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge Class-I, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, in Civil Suit No. 27-A/2005, dated 16.03.2016 has been affirmed. 2. Before the learned trial Court, one Savitri Bai was the original plaintiff. During pendency of the civil suit, she died and the names of the present appellants were substituted before the learned trial Court. The original plaintiff had filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit land bearing khasra No. 62/2, area 0.20 acre, situated at village Chhirpani, Rajeev Nagar, P.H. No. 26, R.I. Circle Lalbahadur Nagar, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon. The plaintiff had pleaded in her plaint that, she was the owner of that suit land and the defendant No. 1 is a Trust organising a Mela in every year at the time of Navratri festival and the subject land was possessed by the defendant No. 1 for parking of the vehicles. Despite the objection raised by the plaintiff, the act of the defendant was not stopped. It is also pleaded that on 12.01.2000, a demarcation was also made on her instance and her four corners of the land was fixed, but the defendant No. 1 had encroached over the suit land and started construction on her land, then the civil suit had been filed. 3. The defendant came with the plea that, the defendant No. 1 is a Public Trust registered under the Public Trust Act. They have purchased the suit land bearing khasra No. No. 62/1, area 2.03 acres for a total 3 consideration of Rs. 27,000/- vide registered sale-deed dated 27.07.1994 from one Mahettar Sahu and came into possession of the same. After getting its mutation in the name of the Trust, they developed the land for the purposes of organising the Mela at the time of festival. Some encroachers were also there over the land of khasra No. 62/1, situated at village Chhirpani, Rajeev Nagar, P.H. No. 26, R.I. Circle Lalbahadur Nagar, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, for which the Trust had filed the civil suit, which was decreed on 22.09.1997 and the appeal filed by the encroachers had been dismissed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon vide judgment and decree dated 20.02.2003. The decree was executed and possession was delivered to the defendant No. 1 and they are organising Mela every year at the time of festival. They have not encroached any part of the land of the plaintiff, and no cause of action arose in her favour. It is also pleaded that with the aid of the government, they started construction over the land of khasra No. 62/1 for public interest and for the convenience of the persons, who came there at the time of Mela, therefore, no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. The defendant No. 2/State has also filed their written statement and have also contested the suit filed by the plaintiff. After recording evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove her case that the defendant No. 1 had encroached any part of her land. While recording the finding by the learned trial Court, they have considered the demarcation report 4 (exhibit P/2), which was filed by the plaintiff in her support, which was conducted on 12.01.2000 on the instance of the plaintiff herself, in which it has been clearly mentioned that there was no dispute over the land of khasra No. 62/2, area 0.20 acre. It has also been held by the learned trial Court that, the plaintiff could not establish any encroachment over any part of her land of khasra No. 62/2. She neither gave any measurement of the land, over which the defendant No. 1 had encroached. 5. In absence of any sufficient evidence with respect to the encroachment over the land of the plaintiff and considering the demarcation report (exhibit P/2) filed by the plaintiff herself, the learned First Appellate Court has also dismissed the first appeal filed by the plaintiff affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, this second appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would argued that, the learned trial Court as well as First Appellate Court have failed to consider the evidence led by them that, the defendant No. 1 had encroached her land of khasra No. 62/2 and constructed over her land. He would also submit that, the defendant No.1 had not produced any demarcation report with respect to their part of the land, yet the suit filed by them has been dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the record of the trial Court. 5 8. The claim of the plaintiff is over the land of Khasra No. 62/2, area 0.20 acre, situated at village Chhirpani, Rajeev Nagar, P.H. No. 26, R.I. Circle Lalbahadur Nagar, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon. From perusal of the document (exhibit P/2), which is the demarcation report filed by the plaintiff, it clearly established that, there was no dispute over the land of Khasra No. 62/2, area 0.20 acre, which belongs to the plaintiff. From the revenue documents (exhibit P/4 and P/5) also, it does not transpire any encroachment over the land of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff came with the plea that, the defendant No. 1 had encroached her land, she ought to have established the fact of encroachment. However, this Court does not find any evidence with respect to the fact that the defendant No. 1 had encroached over any part of the land of Khasra No. 62/2, area 0.20 acre. 9. This Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the judgment passed by learned trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and there is no question of law, much less than substantial question of law involved in the present appeal to be determined. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed without noticing to the other parties. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved