1 2026:CGHC:7572 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 6 of 2026 1 - Bhanwar Lal Soni S/o Harchand Soni Aged About 76 Years R/o Village And Tahsil- Patan, District- Durg, C.G. 2 - Mangla Devi W/o Bhanwar Lal Soni Aged About 75 Years R/o Village And Tahsil- Patan, District- Durg, C.G. ... Appellants versus 1 - Chaitram Dhankar S/o Lt. Rambharosa Dhankar Aged About 68 Years R/o Tahsil - Patan District- Durg, C.G. 2 - State Of C.G. Through The Collector, District Durg, C.G. 3 - Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Patan, District- Durg, C.G. …. Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Appellants : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 11/02/2026 1. The appellants/defendants No.1 & 2 have preferred the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 17.09.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Patan District AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.02.12 17:08:07 +0530 2 Durg, (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.204A/2024 (Chaitram Vs. Bhanwar Lal Soni & Ors), arising out of the judgment dated 21.02.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Patan, District Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.12A/2020 (Chaitram Vs. Bhanwar Lal Soni & Ors), whereby the learned Appellate Court remanded back the matter to the trial Court for fresh adjudication after affording the parties opportunity of hearing and to adduce evidence. 2. The plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking declaration of title, permanent injunction, pleading inter alia, that the plaintiff’s ancestral house, which had become dilapidated, situated on Abadi land bearing Khasra No. 576 admeasuring 1312 square feet, was sold in the year 2003, to Defendant No. 1 and 1312 square feet to Defendant No. 2. On the same date, possession was delivered to them at the spot after executing the sale. Adjacent to the said land, the plaintiff separated his possession over approximately 0.01 decimal of land, forming part of Khasra No. 576, admeasuring 420 square feet. The plaintiff constructed a separate house on this portion and has been in possession thereof. In the year 2015, Defendants No. 1 and 2 submitted an application before the Tehsildar seeking to purchase the portion of land on which the plaintiff’s house stands. The said application was rejected by the Tehsildar on 25.05.2016. The plaintiff has been in possession of the suit land for the past 13 years. Subsequently, Defendants No. 1 and 2 again filed an application before the 3 Court of the Tehsildar under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, without conducting demarcation. The Tehsildar, Patan, directed the Nagar Panchayat, Patan, to deliver possession of the Abadi land. Defendant No. 1 has been repeatedly issuing notices to the plaintiff to hand over possession of the house constructed on the suit land to Defendants No. 1 and 2, due to which the plaintiff apprehends demolition of his house. Therefore, the plaintiff has prayed that he be declared the owner, having right, title, and interest over the house constructed on the suit land, and that the order dated 27.04.2020 passed by the Tehsildar, Patan, be declared illegal. 3. Defendants No. 1 and 2 have filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. They have stated that the plaintiff sold a portion of the Abadi land bearing Khasra No. 576, admeasuring 1312 square feet, to Defendant No. 1 and another 1312 square feet of the same Khasra number to Defendant No. 2 in the year 2003. On 30.06.2003, the plaintiff executed a registered sale deed in favour of Defendants No. 1 and 2 after receiving the full sale consideration and delivered possession of the entire portion of Khasra No. 576 to them. Since then, Defendants No. 1 and 2 have been in possession of the said land. On 29.03.2015, Defendants No. 1 and 2 commenced construction work on the land purchased through the registered sale deed. At that time, the plaintiff placed a bundle of wood on a portion of the land belonging to the defendants. When the defendants requested 4 the plaintiff to remove the wood, stating that they intended to construct stairs and a toilet on the said land, the plaintiff created a dispute. Upon complaint by the defendants, the Tehsildar, Patan, noting that the purchased land was recorded as Abadi land, remanded the matter to the jurisdiction of Nagar Panchayat, Patan, for due proceedings regarding delivery of possession. Pursuant to directions issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Patan, and the Tehsildar, Patan, Defendant No. 4 issued notices to the plaintiff to vacate the land allegedly in the possession of Defendants No. 1 and 2. In response, the plaintiff, along with his entire family, staged a protest and created pressure on Defendant No. 4 to refrain from taking action. 4. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the issues and after appreciating the entire facts and circumstances of the case on the basis of material available on record dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court, by the impugned judgment, while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2024 passed by the Trial Court, remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration, with directions to restore the suit to its original number and to frame an additional issue, namely: “Whether the order dated 27.04.2020 passed by the Tehsildar, Patan, in Revenue Case No. 102 B/121/Year 2016–17 is illegal?” Further, 5 with regard to the suit land/house and the house land of Respondent Nos. 01 and 02, the Trial Court shall appoint a competent authority as Commissioner to conduct demarcation and prepare a demarcation report, the expenses of which shall be borne by the appellant/plaintiff. After affording both parties an opportunity to be heard on the report, the Trial Court shall ensure proper disposal of the case on merits in accordance with law. Both parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 17.10.2025 at 11:00 AM. Thus, this appeal by the defendants No.1 & 2. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that the learned appellate Court erred in remanding the matter as the trial Court had already afforded due opportunity to the parties. Learned counsel submits that the plaintiff executed registered sale deeds on 30.06.2003 and delivered possession, and since then, the defendants have been in lawful possession. On 29.03.2015, while commencing construction on the purchased land, the plaintiff obstructed the work by placing a bundle of wood on the property. Despite requests to remove it, the plaintiff created a dispute. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Nagar Panchayat, Patan, for due proceedings, and Defendant No. 4 issued notices for vacating the land. The plaintiff, along with his family, protested and obstructed the lawful action. Hence, the impugned remand judgment is illegal, unwarranted, and liable to be set aside. 6 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the impugned orders with utmost circumspection. 7. It is noteworthy that the learned First Appellate Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court with directions to restore the suit to its original number and to frame an additional issue, namely: “Whether the order dated 27.04.2020 passed by the Tehsildar, Patan, in Revenue Case No. 102 B/121/Year 2016–17 is illegal?” Further, with regard to the suit land/house and the house land of Respondent Nos. 01 and 02, the Trial Court shall appoint a competent authority as Commissioner to conduct demarcation and prepare a demarcation report. From perusal of the plaint, it is very clear that the plaintiff had sought a relief seeking declaration that the order of Tehsildar, Patan dated 27/04/2020 is illegal. The defendant controverted the contention of the plaintiff. However, learned trial Court without framing the issue on the legality of order of Tehsildar proceeded and decided the suit. Thus, in my opinion, the impugned judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court is justified and in accordance with law. The appellants have failed to demonstrate any illegality or irregularity. 8. Accordingly, the instant appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep