1 2026:CGHC:7779 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 152 of 2017 Ranjan Pandey S/o Late Shri Keshav, Aged About 54 Years R/o P.V.131 Chaitanypur, P.S. And Tahsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh ..............Plaintiff, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Mantangini Sardar D/o Shashank Sardar, Aged About 35 Years R/o P.V.116 Naya Bazar Pakhanjur, At Present Address P.V.131, P.S. And Tahsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Namai Bain S/o Shri Hemant Bain, Aged About 30 Years R/o P.V.116 Naya Bazar Pakhanjur, At Present Address P.V.131, P.S. And Tahsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3 - Nivas Bain S/o Shri Hemant Bain, Aged About 35 Years R/o P.V.116 Naya Bazar Pakhanjur, At Present Address P.V.131, P.S. And SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.02.12 17:17:47 +0530 2 Tahsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chandicharan Mandal S/o Ranjeet Mandal, Aged About 35 Years R/o P.V.116 Naya Bazar Pakhanjur, At Present Address P.V.131, P.S. And Tahsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sushant @ Shashank Pandey, S/o Late Harlal Pandey, Aged About 25 Years R/o P.V.116 Naya Bazar Pakhanjur, At Present Address P.V.131, P.S. And Tahsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh .................Defendants, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 to 5 : Ms. Tanusha Pathak, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Parag Kotecha. For State : Shri Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate for the State. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board 12.02.2026 3 1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellant/plaintiff challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.12.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 19-A/2016 (Ranjan Pandey v. Smt. Mantangani Sardas & Others) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class- II, Pakhanjur District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) Civil Suit No. 04-A/2010 (Ranjan Pandey v. Smt. Mantangani Sardas & Others). For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court. 2. The present second appeal arises out of a dispute relating to the land situated at Village Murawandi, Patwari Halka No. 13, Tehsil Pakhanjur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.), bearing Khasra Nos. 219/2 and 225/2, admeasuring 1.72 hectares and 0.23 hectares respectively, in all measuring 2.00 hectares, hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”, which has been specifically described in Schedule “A” appended to the plaint. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendants seeking declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction in respect of the said suit land. 4 3. In the suit, the plaintiff pleaded that the suit land was allotted in favour of the plaintiff by the Naib Tahsildar, Pakhanjur, in Revenue Case No. 45/A-19(5)/1984–85 by order dated 25.09.1987. Since then, the plaintiff has been continuously paying land revenue and is in peaceful possession of the suit land. Out of jealousy and ill-will, the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 started cultivating the suit land claiming it to be their own patta land. Upon demarcation conducted on 13.06.2006, illegal encroachment by the defendants was found over different portions of Khasra Nos. 219/2 and 225/2. Despite this, the defendants refused to vacate their illegal possession. 4. It has further been pleaded by the plaintiffs that on their application, the Tahsildar, Pakhanjur, by order dated 06.06.2007 passed in Revenue Case No. 01/A-70/2005–06, directed removal of the defendants’ encroachment and restoration of possession to the plaintiff. However, in revision, the Additional Collector, Uttar Bastar Kanker, by order dated 21.01.2009 passed in Revenue Revision Case No. 02/B- 121/2006–07, wrongly set aside the allotment order, treating it as illegal and forged, due to a serious mistake in calling and 5 considering the record of a different year, instead of the actual allotment case of the year 1984–85. 5. The Additional Collector never called for nor set aside the original allotment case No. 45/A-19(5)/1984–85. After about 22 years, without considering limitation and without examining the original allotment record, an order without jurisdiction was passed. As the original allotment order dated 25.09.1987 in Revenue Case No. 45/A-19(5)/1984–85 still stands, the plaintiff continues to be the lawful Bhumiswami of the suit land. The order dated 21.01.2009 passed by the Additional Collector is illegal, void and non est. The plaintiff has, therefore, sought declaration of title, declaration that the said revisional order is illegal and not binding, recovery of possession, and mesne profits. 6. The Defendant Nos. 1 and 5, in their written statement, denied the plaint averments and contended that the suit land situated at Village Murawandi, Patwari Halka No. 13, bearing Khasra Nos. 219/2 and 225/2, was never lawfully allotted to the plaintiff, and upon enquiry before the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue), Pakhanjur, the record room reported that no such allotment case existed in the plaintiff’s name and no 6 patta was ever issued to him; it was further pleaded that after their rehabilitation under the DNK administration, the defendants have been in continuous possession and cultivation of the land, whereas the plaintiff, without notice and contrary to law, procured a forged and illegal allotment order, which was duly set aside by the Collector/Additional Collector, Kanker, by order dated 21.01.2009 in Revenue Revision Case No. 02/B-121/2006–07, cancelling the order dated 25.09.1987 passed by the Naib Tahsildar; the defendants further asserted that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land, that they came to know of the alleged patta only at the time of demarcation, that the Collector was competent to cancel such illegal allotment in suo motu revision without any bar of limitation, and that the said revisional order having been passed after due hearing calls for no interference, especially when the plaintiff already holds land elsewhere and the defendants have been continuously cultivating the suit land. 7. After appreciating the evidence available on record and after framing the issues, the learned trial Court by the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2016 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff 7 holding that the plaintiff failed to prove any valid title or lawful possession over the suit land. Thereagainst, the Civil Appeal preferred by the plaintiff, which has been dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree by the learned First Appellate Court. Thus, this appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff/appellant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court and the first appellate Court have committed a grave error in appreciating the facts and evidence on record and have recorded perverse findings; it was further contended that the learned first appellate Court was not justified in rejecting the appeal; and it was also argued that the learned Trial Court and the first appellate Court were not justified in holding the allotment of the suit land to be illegal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the material available on record. 10. This Court has carefully examined the records including the judgments of the Trial Court and the first appellate Court. The Trial Court has recorded a well-reasoned finding that the plaintiff’s own documents, including his application for allotment and the afÏdavits filed in the revenue proceedings, 8 show that he claimed himself to be landless and an encroacher of Government land, whereas in his cross- examination it has come on record that prior to the alleged allotment his father had already been allotted land under the DNK scheme and the plaintiff had inherited a share therein, thereby falsifying his claim of being landless at the relevant time. The trial Court have further rightly held that the suit land was recorded as “Bade Jhad Ka Jungle” in the revenue records and, in view of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, such land could not have been lawfully allotted by the Tahsildar, who had no jurisdiction to grant patta of forest land. The alleged allotment has thus been found to be without authority of law and void. The plaintiff has also failed to prove the original allotment record or any lawful source of title and his claim of possession is contradicted by the documentary evidence. The revisional order passed by the Additional Collector, cancelling the illegal allotment after due hearing, has rightly been upheld. These findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence and suffer from no perversity or legal infirmity. This Court, therefore, finds no substantial question of law arising for consideration and afÏrms the 9 concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court and the first appellate Court. 11. 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. 12. 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 has failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law in the findings so recorded. 13. 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 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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 questions, in my view, are essentially question of facts. The appellants 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 11 CPC, no case is made out by the appellant herein. The judgments impugned passed by the learned trial Court as well as First Appellate Court are just and proper and there is no illegality and infirmity at all. 17. Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib