1 2026:CGHC:535 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 252 of 2025 Chhattisgarh Housing Board Through Assistant Engineer, Shri Tarachand Sinha, Aged-About 54 Years, S/o Late Shri Ram Prasad Sinha, Division-1, Sirpur Parisar, Kabir Nagar, Ring Road-2, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Avasa Developers And Infratech Through Its Partner Shri Saajan Das Valiramani S/o Late Shri Peshuram Valaramani Aged-About 61 Years, R/o D-24-25, Sector-05, Near Durga Temple, Devendra Nagar, Raipur Thesil And District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Sanjay Sharma S/o Late Brijbhushan Lal Sharma Aged About 54 Years R/o Near Kota Stadium, Kota, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Smt. Bhavisha Waliramani W/o Manoj Waliramani Aged About 36 Years R/o Sector-5, Near Durga Temple, Devendra Nagar, Raipur C.G. 4. Shivraj Sharma, S/o Sanjay Sharma, Aged About 24 Years R/o Near Kota Stadium, Kota, Raipur (C.G.) 5. Mritunjay Sharma S/o Sanjay Sharma, Aged About 26 Years R/o Near Kota Stadium, Kota, Raipur C.G. 6. Narendra Kumar Jain S/o Late Devichand Jain Aged About 50 Years R/o Shailendra Nagar, Raipur C.G. 7. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Collectorate, Raipur C.G. 8. Competent Authority Under Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976, Collectorate Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.01.07 10:42:34 +0530 2 For Appellant (s) : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Ritesh Giri, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 06/01/2026 Heard. 1. By the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the CPC the appellant is challenging the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the 14th Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 9A/2025 whereby and where-under the learned trial Court rejected the application filed by the plaintiff/ appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction pleading, inter alia, therein that the lands situated at P.H. no. 107, village- Sondongari total rakaba 21.988 hectares was acquired by the state government under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act), 1976 (for short ‘the Act, 1976’). The suit land khasara no. 613/37, rakaba 10920 sqr mtr and khasara no. 613/38 rakaba 320 sqr mtr total rakaba 11240 sqr mtr/1.124 hectare earlier belonged to one Umend Singh S/o Agra Singh was also acquired and notification under section 10(1) of the Act, 1976 was published on 15.12.1982 and notification tender 3 section 10(3) of the Act, 1976 was published on 07.06.1983. As soon as the notification under section 10(3) was published the lands vested into state government free from all encumbrances thus the suit land became the property of state. The possession of the entire 21.188 hectares of lands including suit lands were given to the Housing Board by the State government on 25.08.1989 and the Housing Board is in possession of the suit lands for which the housing Board had paid Rs. 14,20,082/- +35,502+ 61.92 Lakhs to the state government. However though Umend Singh S/o Agra Singh did not have any right over the land as his right had been ceased after notification under 10(3) of the Act, 1976 yet he sold the suit lands to the defendant no. 1 to 6 who had started creating hindrances and started construction of boundary wall over the suit land without any authority or right therefore the necessity to file the instant suit was arise. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC and sought for temporary injunction. 3. The defendants submitted the written statement to the plaint and also filed their reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC and they denied the averments made by the plaintiff. According to the defendants, they had purchased the suit land by different sale deeds which were not challenged by the plaintiff. They also pleaded that the plaint suffers from non joinder of necessary parties. 4 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court failed to appreciate the law with regard to Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC in its true perspective. He would submit that while rejecting the application, the learned Trial Court observed that the name of the plaintiff is not recorded in the revenue records, which is not a conclusive proof of title. He would submit that despite the fact that the plaintiff is having prima facie case in its favour and also balance of convenience lies in its favour and since the defendants are trying to encroach over the disputed land, the Trial Court ought to have granted the temporary injection. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the the parties and perused the documents. 6. It is an admitted fact that along with the plaint the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC and sought for grant of temporary injunction on the ground that on the date of publication of notification on 7.6.1983 under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976, the owner of the land ceased his title and he or his successor did not have any right to sale the property of the State, which was given to the Plaintiff i.e. the Housing Board. 7. After considering all the aspects of the matter in its true perspective and after appreciating the material available on record, the learned trial Court rejected the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC by the order 5 impugned holding therein that the plaintiff failed to prove its case by placing the relevant documents showing that its name is recorded in the B1 Khasra, panchshala or revenue records whereas the defendants/ respondents herein have produced sale deeds, order sheets of demarcation case, panchnama, map as also the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation Raipur and as such it appears that the defendants are in possession of the suit land. The order impugned passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper, warranting no interference of this Court. 8. Accordingly, the instant appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti