1 2025:CGHC:51345 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 78 of 2023 Smt. Bhavna R. Rathore W/o Shri Rajesh Rathore, Aged About 50 Years R/o H.No. 5/44, K.K. Road, Moudhapara, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant.(s) versus 1 - Pardeshi Sahu S/o Lt. Shri Sukhiram Sahu, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Near Shiv Complex (Kapa), Mowa, Bhimarao Ambedkar Ward, Ward No. 27, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Adhiraj Surana, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.L. Prajapati, Panel Lawyer SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 15/10/2025 SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 10/11/2022 passed by the learned Ninth Additional District Judge, Raipur (CG) in Civil Appeal No.11A/2022, which in turn, arises out of the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2021 passed by the Fourth Civil Judge Class-I, Raipur (CG) in Civil Suit in 125A/2015. 2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant No.1 and thereby, affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court. 3. So the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether this  second appeal involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the C.P.C and whether such appeal should be admitted for final hearing? 4. The facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow compass. Respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, making averments inter alia that the State, under the Rajiv Gandhi Aashray Yojna, 1998, granted a Patta on 10.9.1998 (Ex.P/12C) in his favour in respect of land admeasuring 310 sq. ft. situated at Mowa Raipur. The boundaries of the said land were specified as : to the north – house of Adhari, to the south house of Krishna Kumar, to the east house of Santosh Sen and to the west open land. After grant of Patta, the plaintiff constructed a house and for the past 37 years, he is residing in a peaceful manner in the said property. Upon receiving 3 a notice from the Tehsildar, Raipur, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that a proceeding has been initiated by the appellant herein /defendant No.1 under Section 250 of the CG Land Revenue Code pursuant to a demarcation carried out on 11.12.2014. In the Demarcation Report, it was mentioned that the plaintiff along with 11 other persons had encroached upon the defendant’s land. Consequently, the plaintiff filed the present civil suit. 5. In his written statement, the appellant/defendant No.1 has averred that he purchased Khasra Nos.80/2, 81/3 and 86/4 admeasuring a total area of 6600 sq. ft. from one Damodar Agrawal on 25.4.2007 and thereafter, took possession of the said property. Earlier, the said property was recorded in the name of Harakhchand S/o Aaskaran Kochar and after his death, the said property devolved upon his legal heirs. Subsequently, the legal heirs of Harakhchand, through Rajesh Kumar Kochar, their power of attorney holder, executed a sale-deed in favour of Damodar Agrawal on 9.3.2005. Subsequently, Damodar Agarwal sold the said property to the appellant/defendant No.1. It has been further averred that the Patta land is different and does not pertain to the land owned by the appellant and the plaintiff has encroached upon the land belonging to defendant No.1. Since the plaintiff encroached upon the land of defendant No.1/appellant, the latter also filed WPC No.938/2014 before this Court, which was disposed of with certain observations/directions. Accordingly, the 4 defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. The trial Court has framed as many as five issues. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has examined himself and Anwar Hussain, Ward Councillor (PW-2) and further exhibited 12 documents vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/12. The appellant/defendant has examined herself and Rajesh Rathore (DW-2), her husband and Ravishankar Dewangan (DW-3), Registration Clerk of the Sub- Registrar Office, Raipur and also exhibited 5 documents vide Ex.D/1 to D/5. 7. The trial Court, after evaluation of the evidence, reached to the conclusion that a Patta had been granted vide Ex.P/12C in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit was partly allowed and decreed to the above extent, which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The trial Court did not grant the reliefs of declaration of title and permanent injunction, therefore, the plaintiff also filed a cross-objection in the First Appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant No.1. The First Appellate Court dismissed both the appeal as well as the plaintiff’s cross objection. Hence, the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant No.1. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that since the trial Court did not conclude that title had been perfected in favour of the plaintiff and also declined to grant the relief of permanent injunction, the partial relief granted is not proper. When a query has been put to the counsel for the appellant, he fairly admits that 5 no cross suit had been filed by the appellant in respect of the subject land. He also admits the fact that by order dated 16.5.2017 vide Ex.D/5 (in a Revisional Case), the earlier demarcation was cancelled by the Upper Collector, District Raipur on the ground that no Batankan had been made in the original map. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 10. The appellant’s case is that he purchased the property admeasuring area 0.060 hectare from one Damodar Agrawal, however, it was found on the spot that other persons have encroached upon the land and are residing there. Admittedly, the appellant herein has not filed any suit for declaration of title or injunction against the said encroachers to evict them in accordance with law. Furthermore, the documents filed before the trial Court clearly show that the demarcation has not yet been finalised, as no Batankan has been made in the original map and more so, under the subject State Scheme, Patta has been granted to several persons. It is also evident that the plaintiff and others have constructed houses and are peacefully residing on land admeasuring only 310 sq. ft. The trial Court has merely affirmed the existence of a Patta in favour of the plaintiff. Unless the appellant herein establishes that the plaintiff was awarded Patta for a different land or that the authorities have wrongly granted Patta to the plaintiff over his land without proper 6 demarcation, this Court is of the view that the relief granted by the trial Court being limited only to the extent of Patta granted to the plaintiff, cannot, in any manner, be said to be perverse. Hence, the findings recorded by both the Courts below are concurrent findings of fact, which are just, proper and this Court does not find any irregularity or illegality or infirmity in the said findings. 11. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the record of the case, I find absolutely no merit in this appeal as it involves no question of law   much less substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of C.P.C.  and thus, it deserves to be dismissed in limine. 12. To conclude, there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal, involving no substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the C.P.C., fails and is hereby dismissed in limine Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna