1 2025:CGHC:50575 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 70 of 2021 Devraj Singh S/o Brijkishore Singh, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Bodla, Police Station And Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Appellant : Mr. HB Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Ms. A.Sandhya Rao, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Santosh Soni, Government Advocate and Mr. Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 10/10/2025 Heard. 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 under 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment dated 25.2.2021 passed in Civil Appeal No.14-A/2014 by the District Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (CG), affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.8.2013 passed in Civil Suit No.16-A/2012 passed by the First Civil Judge Class-I, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (CG). The said civil suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for declaration of title relating to Khasra No.570 admeasuring area 3.54 acres, Patwari Halka No.7, Village Bodla and for permanent injunction, was dismissed. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that admittedly, the subject land was recorded in the name of of the State and an Encroachment Case was registered against the appellant/plaintiff in Revenue Case No.106/A-68/2008-09. In the said case, the appellant/plaintiff claimed that his forefathers have been in continuous possession and cultivation of the subject land since estate times. Earlier, in the year 2003 also, an encroachment case was registered, wherein, the Village Panchayat, Bodla made a recommendation for settlement vide Resolution dated 1.7.2003. The Tehsildar, Bodla vide order dated 6.8.2009 (Annexure P/10) dismissed Revenue Case No.106/A-68/2008-09, observing that there is a dispute regarding the claim of the appellant/plaintiff with the State and directed the appellant/plaintiff to prefer an appropriate application in terms of Section 57(2) of the CG Land Revenue Code. Thereafter, the appellant/plaintiff has preferred such application before the SDO, Bodla and the said application 3 was dismissed vide order dated 29.6.2011 (Annexure P/11), as the appellant/plaintiff has not filed any substantial document to prove his title over the subject land. Thereafter, the civil suit was filed on 2.1.2012. The trial Court framed as many as three issues and after evaluating the evidence, reached to the conclusion that the appellant/plaintiff failed to prove any document or adduce satisfactory evidence to establish his title over the subject land. Consequently, the suit was dismissed and the said finding was affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, this Second Appeal has been preferred. 3. This appeal has been admitted for hearing on 28.3.2023 by formulating the following substantial questions of law : (i) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal by recording a finding perverse to the record or not? (ii) Whether the Courts below have failed to consider the documents pertaining to proof of possession of the plaintiff himself and also his predecessor or not?” 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would submit that both the Courts below has erred in reaching their respective conclusions, though the possession is admitted by the State since a long time. He submits that the trial Court ought to have 4 admitted the suit of the appellant/plaintiff. He lastly submits that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are perverse, as possession follows the title. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would support the impugned judgment. 6. Admittedly, the appellant/plaintiff has raised a dispute before the SDO, Bodla under Section 57(2) of the CG Land Revenue Code. The SDO recorded a finding that the appellant/plaintiff failed to prove any document in support of title over the subject land, Moreover, a request for settlement was made solely on the basis of dismissal of the Encroachment Case vide order dated 6.8.2009 passed by the Tehsildar, Bodla (Ex.P/10). Further, no lease, patta or any order has been issued/passed by the State in favour of the appellant/plaintiff for the subject land. In the order dated 6.8.2009 (Ex.P/10) passed by the Tehsildar, Bodla, only an observation was recorded that the Village Panchayat, Bodla had earlier made a recommendation on 1.7.2003 for certain settlement by passing a resolution. However, no right has been conferred or originated by any such resolution. Furthermore, the appellant/plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that any right or title over the subject land has been perfected in his favour. 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. 5 7. Accordingly, both the substantial questions are answered against the appellant/plaintiff. 8. Resultantly, the Appeal is dismissed. 9. No order as to costs. 10. A decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna 6