1 2026:CGHC:4888 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 528 of 2017 Mahendra Sahu S/o Shivdayal Sahu, Aged About 50 Years R/o Kailash Nagar, Dantewada, Tahsil Dantewada, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ..............Plaintiff, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Lachhin S/o Masu, Aged About 49 Years R/o Bahadur Gudhapara, Jagdalpur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o In Prakash Malviya V.D.Hall, Furniture Mart, Kailash Nagar, Dantewada, Tahsil Dantewada, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Satyam @ Satya Sahu S/o Shri Lochan Sahu, Aged About 39 Years R/o Kailashnagar, Dantewada, Tahsil Dantewada, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 3 - Tahsildar, Dantewada, Tahsil Dantewada, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Collector, Dantewada, SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.01.30 10:40:14 +0530 2 District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh .............Defendants, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri Ramsajiwan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Lekhram Dhruv, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board 29.01.2026 1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellant/plaintiff is challenging the impugned judgment dated 22.07.2017 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Dantewada, District South Bastar- Dantewada (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 03-A/2014 (Mahendra Sahu vs. Lachhin & Others) arising out of the order dated 04.09.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class- II, Dantewada District South Bastar- Dantewada (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 7-A/2011 (Mahendra Sahu vs. Lachhin & Others) For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court. 2. The plaintiff/appellant instituted a civil suit seeking declaration, possession and permanent injunction, pleading inter alia that the suit property situated at Dantewada, 3 Patwari Halka No. 03-A, Revenue Inspector Circle Dantewada, Tehsil and District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, comprising four rooms and a verandah constructed over Khasra No. 314 admeasuring 0.14 acre, has been in his continuous possession since the time of the previous owner, Smt. Shyamadevi, and that respondent No. 01 was never in possession thereof. It was pleaded that with a mala fide intention to dispossess the appellant, respondent No. 01 initiated proceedings under Section 170(B) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code before the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue), Dantewada, who allegedly acted illegally and passed an order dated 14.01.2011 directing dispossession of the appellant through the Tahsildar. Challenging the legality and validity of the said order, the appellant filed the civil suit. 3. In the said civil suit, the Respondent/defendant No. 01, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that the plaintiff is an illegal encroacher, that respondent No. 01 belongs to a Scheduled Tribe (Gond community) whereas the plaintiff does not, and therefore, in view of Section 165(6) read with Section 170(B) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, the suit is barred under Section 257(1)(t) of the Code. It was 4 further pleaded that the plaintiff had challenged the revenue order without serving mandatory notice upon the State Government under Section 80 CPC. 4. The plaintiff, in reply to the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, asserted that he and respondent No. 02 have been in continuous possession of the suit property since the time of Smt. Shyama Devi, and that respondent No. 01 purchased the land only on 15.01.2011 through a registered sale deed. It was pleaded that there was no transfer or fraudulent transfer attracting Section 170(B), and at best, Section 250 could apply. The plaintiff further alleged that the revenue proceedings were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice, as he was not supplied documents, not allowed to file objections, nor given an opportunity of hearing. The suit was filed only for declaration that the revenue proceedings and order dated 14.01.2011 were null and void, and therefore, Section 80 CPC was not attracted. Thus, the plaintiff would pray for dismissal of the application under Order VII Rule 7 of the CPC. 5. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court by the Order dated 04.09.2012 allowed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC holding that 5 the suit property situated at Village Dantewada, Patwari Halka No. 03(A), Khasra No. 341 admeasuring 0.14 acre was the subject matter of proceedings under Section 170(B) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue), Dantewada, after considering the merits and relevant documents, by order dated 14.01.2011, held the plaintiff to be in illegal possession and directed restoration of possession of 0.055 hectare of the said land to defendant No. 01.The Trial Court held that in view of Section 257(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, any order passed by a Revenue OfÏcer under Section 170(B) is expressly barred from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Since the order was passed under Section 170(B), the civil suit was held to be not maintainable. The Trial Court further observed that although the State of Chhattisgarh was impleaded as a party, mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC was neither issued nor was any application under Section 80(2) CPC filed, amounting to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of law. It was also observed that the appeal against the order dated 14.01.2011 was pending before the Collector, and therefore parallel civil proceedings were impermissible. 6 Accordingly, the trial Court concluded that the suit was barred by law and rejected the plaint. 6. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.09.2012, passed by the learned trial Court, the plantiff/appellant preferred Civil Appeal No. 03-A/2014 before the learned Additional District Judge, Dantewada. The First Appellate Court, by judgment dated 22.07.2017, afÏrmed the findings of the Trial Court, holding that the civil suit was barred under Section 257(1)(t) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code as the impugned order was passed under Section 170(B), and also upheld the finding of non-compliance with Section 80 CPC. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the order dated 04.09.2012 was afÏrmed. Thus this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that learned both the courts have committed a manifest error of law in holding that the civil suit is barred under Section 257(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, without appreciating that the reliefs sought by the appellant were for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction, which squarely fall within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The courts below failed to 7 consider that the plaint itself disclosed serious illegality and jurisdictional error in the proceedings conducted by the Revenue Authorities under Section 170-B of the Code, and such illegal proceedings are always open to challenge before the Civil Court. Merely because one of the parties is a tribal, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not automatically ousted, particularly when adjudication of civil rights and title is involved. Furthermore, the courts below mechanically applied Section 257 without examining the scope, object and ingredients of Section 170-B, and without determining whether the Revenue Authority acted within its lawful competence. The application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was allowed without a meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole, and without considering that the bar of jurisdiction was not apparent on the face of the plaint, thereby rendering the impugned judgments unsustainable in law. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the material available on record. 9. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, documents on record and the submissions advanced, this Court finds that the suit property situated at Village Dantewada, Patwari Halka 8 No. 03(A), Khasra No. 341 admeasuring 0.14 acre was admittedly the subject matter of proceedings initiated under Section 170(B) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue), Dantewada, after examining the material available on record, passed a reasoned order dated 14.01.2011, holding the plaintiff to be in illegal possession and directing restoration of possession of 0.055 hectare of land in favour of respondent No. 01. 10. This Court concurs with the findings of the courts that in view of the express bar contained under Section 257(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is clearly excluded in respect of orders passed by the Revenue Authorities under Section 170(B). Since the foundation of the civil suit is a challenge to an order passed under Section 170(B), the suit is ex facie barred by law and is not maintainable. 11. This Court further finds that though the State of Chhattisgarh was impleaded as a party, the plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of notice under Section 80 CPC, and no application seeking leave under Section 80(2) CPC was filed, rendering the suit defective on this ground as well. It is 9 also an admitted position that an appeal against the order dated 14.01.2011 was pending before the Collector. In such circumstances, initiation of parallel civil proceedings was wholly impermissible and amounted to an abuse of process of law. This Court finds no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders impugned. Accordingly, the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is upheld. 7. Even otherwise, the scope of interference in a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is extremely limited. Interference is permissible only when the appeal involves a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts cannot be interfered with unless such findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to settled principles of law. 8. In the present case, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have concurrently recorded findings, on the basis of evidence available on record, that the appellant/plaintiff failed to establish their case by placing cogent and sufÏcient material. The appellants have failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law in the findings so recorded. 10 9. The questions sought to be raised in the present Second Appeal essentially relate to re-appreciation of evidence and challenge to concurrent findings of fact. Such questions do not give rise to any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. It is well established that when there is a concurrent finding of fact, unless it is found to be perverse, the Court should not ordinarily interfere with the said finding. 11. In the matter of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Shiv Dayal and another, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 637, reiterating the settled proposition, it has been held that when any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in second appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded de hors the pleadings or based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against any provision of law and lastly, the decision is one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached. 12. Be that as it may, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and the proposed question of law cannot be regarded as satisfying the test of being ‘substantial question of law’ within the meaning of Section 100 of CPC. These 11 questions, in my view, are essentially question of facts. The appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law which is required under Section 100 of the CPC in. In any event, the Second Appeal did not involve any substantial question of law as contemplated under Section 100 of the CPC, no case is made out by the appellant herein. The Order impugned passed by the learned trial Court and the Judgment passed by the First Appellate Court are just and proper and there is no illegality and infirmity at all. 13. Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib/Gowri