1 2025:CGHC:49384 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 358 of 2016 1 - Deleted (Smt. Purnima Devi Chandrakar) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 07- 08-20251.1 - Chandrashekar Chandrakar, S/o Late Sevanlal Chandrakar, Aged About 48 Years R/o Fauwara Chawk, Bairan Bazar, Raipur, Tahsil Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 1.2 - Dr. Sanjay Chandrakar, S/o Late Sevanlal Chandrakar, Aged About 46 Years R/o Fauwara Chawk, Bairan Bazar, Raipur, Tahsil Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 1.3 - Vikash Chandrakar, S/o Late Sevanlal Chandrakar, Aged About 37 Years R/o Fauwara Chawk, Bairan Bazar, Raipur, Tahsil Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 1.4 - Smt. Ambika Chandravansi, W/o Shri B. P. Chandravansi, Aged About 31 Years R/o S. P. Banglow, Civil Lines Vidisha, Civil And Revenue District Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh 1.5 - Smt. Vijay Laxmi Chandrakar, W/o Dr. Rajendra Chandrakar, Aged About 43 Years R/o 52-A, Cross Street, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, Tahsil Durg, Civil And Revenue District Durg, Chhattisgarh 1.6 - Smt. Manisha Chandrakar, W/o Shri Sanjay Chandrakar, Aged About 39 Years R/o Shankar Nagar Durg, Tahsil Durg, Civil And Revenue District Durg, Chhattisgarh.......Plaintiffs ... Appellants Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 2 - Chief Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh Mantralaya, Rakhi, Post And P. S. Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh......Defendants ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 26/09/2025 1. This second appeal is filed against the order/judgment dated 11.02.2016 (Annexure A/1) passed by the District Judge, Mahasamund in Civil Appeal No. H 103-A/14 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2009 passed by the 1st Civil Judge, Class – I, Mahsamund in Civil Suit No. 25 A/2009. 2. Facts of the case are that the plaintiff/appellant have filed suit for declaration of title, possession of the suit property bearing Khasra No. 430, 434 recorded in the name of State Government as ‘pond’ and ‘bay of pond’. The new khasra number is mentioned in the revenue records for the said pond is Khasra No. 690. Suit ws filed on the ground that the plaintiff purchased the suit property from registered owner Gulab Singh and Gulabi Singh vide registered sale deed dated 05.04.1971. It is further pleaded that earlier Gulab Singh and Gulabi Singh have purcahsed the land from one Hamiuddin Nisha vide Ex. P/9 who had earlier purchased the land from ex-malguzar Pratap Singh. It is also pleaded that the aforementioned two sellers have purchased the said property from the ex-malguzar. The declaration of land to be a government land is erroneous. 3. It is also contended that plaintiff got knowledge about recording of the name of the State Government only in the year 2006 and thereafter, after obtaining the documents, civil suit was filed. The Respondents/State filed 3 their reply to the Civil Suit and pleaded that the pond is recorded in the name of the State Government. Plaintiff was not in possession of the suit pond since 1971, but it is the State Government in possession through the Panchayat. 4. It is also pleaded that the pond is being used since last more than 50 years by the local residents. The suit was filed on false and fabricated grounds which is also barred by limitation and further, that the said pond is vested with the State Government. 5. Learned Trial Court based on the pleadings made by the respective parties has formulated as many as 17 issues and after conclusion of trial, have dismissed the suit. The judgment and decree and passed by the learned Trial Court was put to challenge in First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Learned Trial Court has also recorded a finding that the suit property was vested with the State Government. 6. Defendant in evidence have produced the revenue documents in which, it is mentioned that the new Khasra No. 690 (old bearing khasra no. 430, 434) is underwater and recorded in the name of State Government. Revenue entries of the year 1976-77 and 1977-78 is filed as Ex. P/7 based on the Patwari report stating that Khasra No. 430 and 434 is declared as Pond. The Appellate Court based on the evidence available on record has concluded that the original plaintiff has not placed the document like the order dated 07.06.1965 of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the revenue record of 1974-75 serial no. 586 and thereby, not proved their case. 7. Learned Appellate Court has also considered that as the land was recorded in the name of the State Government as land under water, the land was already vested with the State Government in the year 1965 and therefore, the sale transaction vide Ex. P/9 by Hamiuddin Nisha to Gulab 4 Singh and Gulabi Singh to be null and void and consequently, the sale transaction dated 15.04.1971 (Ex. P/8) by Gulab Singh and Gulabi Singh in favour of Sonal Chandrakar also be to be void ab initio. 8. According to the provision under Section 251 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Code, 1959), all tanks situated on unoccupied land on or before the date of coming into force of the Act, providing for the abolition of the rights of intermediaries in the area concerned and over which, members of village community were immediately before such date, exercising rights of irrigation or nistar, shall if not already vested in the State Government, vest absolutely in the State Government w.e.f. 06.04.1959. 9. The aforementioned provision further provides under sub-section 2 of Section 251 that any person claiming any such tank, any interest other than the right of irrigation or nistar may within a period of 04 years from the date of vesting under sub-section 1 of Section 251 make an application in the prescribed form to the Collector for compensation in respect of interest. 10. The provision under Section 257 talks of exclusive jurisdiction of revenue authortiies. It provides that 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 Revenue Board or a Revenue Officer is 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. Section 257 (y) of the Code, 1959 provides for any decision regarding vesting of Tanks in State Government under Section 251 and any claim against the State Government arising thereunder. From the aforementioned provision, it is apparent that the jurisdiction of Civil Court 5 is barred for enteraining any grievance or application or proceeding against the vesting of Tanks under Section 251 of the Code, 1959. 11. As the sale-deed itself had to be null and void because on the date of execution of the sale-deed, the property subject matter of sale-deed was not recorded in the name of seller and therefore, no title can be transferred to the purchaser i.e. the plaintiff. From the oral and documentary evidence available on record, in the opinion of this Court, there is no perversity or illegality in the finding recorded by the learned Couts below. 12. The appeal does not involve any substantial questions of law and therefore, it is dismissed at the admission stage. 13. Decree be drawn accordingly. 14. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey