1 2025:CGHC:58971 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 461 of 2016 1 - Selv Kumar S/o Late Marimuttu, Aged About 53 Years, R/o- 91 / D, Risali Sector, Bhilai, Tahsil and District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Srinivas S/o Late Marimuttu, Aged About 44 Years, R/o- 91 / D, Risali Sector, Bhilai, Tahsil and District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ganeshan S/o Late Marimuttu, Aged About 40 Years, R/o- 91 / D, Risali Sector, Bhilai, Tahsil and District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Harikrishna, S/o Late Marimuttu, Aged About 38 Years, R/o- 91 / D, Risali Sector, Bhilai, Tahsil and District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh .......Plaintiff ... Appellants versus 1 - Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Hira Lal, Department Address Personnel No. 146700, Senior Technician, Kokovan Mm, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh,.......Defendant., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ......Defendants ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Krishna Tandon and Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 04-12-2025 1. The present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘the CPC’) against the Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.12.12 16:13:40 +0530 2 impugned judgment and decree dated 30-04-2016 passed by the learned VIth Additional District Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.34A/2013 whereby the first appeal filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed and judgment and decree dated 12-08-2010 passed by the learned IVth Civil Judge Class II, Durg in Civil Suit No.7A/2010 has been affirmed. 2. The original plaintiff Smt. Subbamma had filed a civil suit for declaration that she is residing over the suit house legally, the defendant No.1 may be directed to issue offer letter so that the plaintiff could deposit the claimed amount, the amount of Rs.1,25,160/- which has already been assessed with respect to allotment of the suit house should be recovered from defendant No.2 and for permanent injunction from peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit house. She pleaded in the plaint that the husband of the plaintiff was employed with defendant No.1 on the post of S.M.S. -1 Crane Operator and retired in the year 1997. The plaintiff is residing in the suit house Qtr. No.91 D, Rishali Sector, Bhilai since lifetime of her husband. On 22-07-2002 she deposited the caution money of Rs.8,500/- for allotment of the suit house in her fvour and at the time of submission of the application for allotment total value of the suit house was disclosed as Rs.1,70,000/- and it was informed to the plaintiff that after its valuation and survey the offer letter would be provided to the plaintiff, however, neither survey was conducted nor any offer letter was served upon her. On 09-03-2006 a notice was served upon the plaintiff that she is residing illegally in the suit house which has been replied by her on 11-03-2006. The defendant No.1 has issued notice of hearing and asked her to remain present in the proceeding and the defendant No.1 has claimed total 1,25,160/- towards damages, electricity charges, conservancy charges, water charges, meter rent and future damages. The plaintiff replied that she obtained the suit house from defendant No.2 and the liability to pay any damages or charges is upon defendant No.2 and the claimed amount should be recovered from him. 3 3. The claim raised by the plaintiff before defendant No.1 was rejected on 30- 08-2006 and another notice for vacation was served upon her and then the present suit has been filed. 4. The defendant No.1 has filed his written statement and denied the plaint averment and pleaded that the plaintiff is residing over the suit house illegally and without any authority. He also denied that they made any offer for allotment of the suit house in favour of the plaintiff and disclosed its valuation. They also denied that the plaintiff is entitled for allotment of the suit house and since she is in illegal possession of the suit house the vacation notice was served upon her on 09-03-2006. It is also pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiff herself has made contradictory statement that one side she is saying that she is residing over the suit house from the lifetime of her husband, whereas on the other side she stated that she obtained the suit house from defendant No.2 and therefore, claim of the plaintiff itself is suspicious. It is also pleaded in the written statement that the defendant No.1 had initiated proceeding for vacation of the plaintiff before the estate officer in Case No.25/2006 in which an order has been passed on 30-08-2006 for vacation of the plaintiff and since the plaintiff is an encroacher over the suit house she cannot claim relief as claimed in the present suit and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is also pleaded in the written statement that the suit house was allotted to Hiralal Nandgouli and the husband of the plaintiff was retired in the year 1997 from services of the Bhilai Steel Plant. The defendant No.1 had framed a scheme to allot houses on lease to the employees of the Bhilai Steel Plant and in order to obtain the suit house the plaintiff has deposited Rs.8,500/- along with the application to defendant No.1 and on scrutiny it was found that the suit house was allotted to one Hiralal Nandgouli and the plaintiff is residing there as his tenant without any prior permission of the Bhilai Steel Plant for which he was not competent to give it to the plaintiff on rent. On 4 being scrutiny it was also found that there was an outstanding dues against Hiralal Nandgouli with respect to the water and electricity and other dues which amounting to Rs.1,25,160/-. It is also pleaded that as per Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short ‘the Act of 1971’) the jurisdiction to hear the matter is with estate officer and the Act of 1971 is applicable over the suit house and the order passed by the estate officer is appealable before the District Judge. Only to avoid payment of penalty the plaintiff has filed the present suit which is not maintainable and no proper valuation or court fee has been paid in the suit, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, considering the objection raised by the defendant No.1 a preliminary issue was framed by the learned trial Court with respect to the maintainability of the suit in view of the provision of Section 15 of the Act of 1971 as to whether the civil court is having jurisdiction to decide the dispute or not?. 6. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court has considered that the suit house is owned by Bhilai Steel Plant and comes under the definition of public premises. Vide notification dated 08-03-1997 issued by the Government of India, Department of Steel, the Bhilai Steel Plant was declared as public premises and the provisions of the Act of 1971 is applicable to the property of the Bhilai Steel Plant. Section 15 of the Act of 1971 provides that the suit or proceeding is to be filed before the estate officer and appeal is also provided before the District Judge against the order passed by the estate officer which is provided under Section 9 of the Act of 1971 and also that the suit as plaint is not maintainable before civil court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide its judgment and decree dated 12-08-2010. 7. The judgment and decree dated 12-08-2010 was challenged by the plaintiff before the learned first appellate Court which has also been dismissed vide its judgment and decree dated 30 April, 2016. Hence, this second appeal. 5 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint is maintainable in the suit filed before the civil court as she is claiming her right to reside over the suit house as she is lawfully occupant of the suit house, whereas, Section 15 talks about unauthorised occupants over the suit house, therefore, there is no bar of Section 15 of the Act of 1971 to entertain the suit. He would also submit that looking to the nature of dispute between the parties and the claim raised by the plaintiff the civil court is having jurisdiction to decide the lis and the learned trial Court as well as the learned first appellate Court has erroneously dismissed the suit which cannot be done by deciding the suit on preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the suit, therefore, there is substantial question of law involved in the present appeal for its determination. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the trial Court. 10. The basis of dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff, is the bar created under Section 15 of the Act of 1971 which is necessary to notice here, which reads as under:- “15. Bar of jurisdiction.— No court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of— (a) the eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, or (b) the removal of any building, structure or fixture or goods, cattle or other animal from any public premises under section 5A, or (c) the demolition of any building or other structure made, or ordered to be made, under section 5B, or (cc) the sealing of any erection or work or of any public premises under section 5C, or (d) the arrears of rent payable under sub-section (1) of section 7 or damages payable under sub-section (2), or interest payable under sub-section (2A), of that section, or (e) the recovery of— 6 (i) costs of removal of any building, structure or fixture or goods, cattle or other animal under section 5A, or (ii) expenses of demolition under section 5B, or (iii) costs awarded to the Central Government or statutory authority under sub-section (5) of section 9, or (iv) any portion of such rent, damages, costs of removal, expenses of demolition or costs awarded to the Central Government or the statutory authority.” 11. The learned trial Court has considered that there is bar under Section 15 of the Act of 1971 to entertain the suit with respect to the vacation of the unauthorised occupants of any public premises, arrears of rent payable or damages payable under the Act or recovery of cost etc., that precisely has been prayed by the plaintiff in the present suit and considering the nature of suit and relief claimed the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit holding that it is barred by Section 15 of the Act of 1971. The learned first appellate Court has considered the definition of unauthorised occupation which is provided under Section 2(g) of the Act of 1971, which reads as under:- “2. Definitions….. (g) “unauthorised occupation”, in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever.” 12. From perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court it also transpires that they have taken note of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which provides the jurisdiction of the civil court, Section 9 of the CPC provides the courts to try of civil suits unless barred which reads as under: “9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred.-The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all 7 suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.” 13. When the dispute with respect to public premises is barred under Section 15 of the Act of 1971, no civil suit is maintainable before the civil court as provided under Section 9 of the CPC, further it transpires that the order of vacation has already been passed by the estate officer in Case No.25/2006 vide order dated 30-08-2006 and appeal has been provided under Section 9 of the Act of 1971 before the District Judge. Therefore, in all aspects the civil suit with respect to the present subject matter is not maintainable which has rightly been considered by the learned trial Court as well as the learned first appellate Court. 14. Accordingly, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned first appellate Court and there is no question of law much less the substantial question of law involved in the present appeal for its determination. Consequently, the appeal is hereby dismissed without noticing the other side. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil