1 2026:CGHC:25421 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 109 of 2026 1 - Loknath S/o Pati Ram Aged About 45 Years R/o Vill- Bachhraon, Tahsil- Bagicha, Dist. - Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - Parshuram Bhandari S/o Shivprasad Aged About 50 Years President Rurhi Pratha Paramparik Sabha Bachhraon R/o Vill- Bachhraon, Tahsil- Bagicha, Dist.- Jashpur (C.G.) 3 - Rejeniyus S/o Piyus Aged About 50 Years Vice President Rurhi Pratha Paramparik Sabha Bachhraon R/o Vill- Bachhraon, Tahsil- Bagicha, Dist.- Jashpur (C.G.) 4 - Piter Khes S/o Patram Khes Aged About 50 Years Deputy Secretary Rurhi Pratha Paramparik Sabha Bachhraon R/o Vill- Bachhraon, Tahsil- Bagicha, Dist.- Jashpur (C.G.) 5 - Pintu Nayak S/o Jagdish Aged About 50 Years Treasurer, Rurhi Pratha Paramparik Sabha Bachhraon R/o Vill- Bachhraon, Tahsil- Bagicha, Dist.- Jashpur (C.G.) 6 - Rajuram S/o Sukhu Aged About 47 Years Executive Member, Rurhi Pratha Paramparik Sabha Bachhraon R/o Vill- Bachhraon, Tahsil- Bagicha, Dist.- Jashpur (C.G.) 7 - Bhulku Ram Yadav S/o Baru Aged About 70 Years Executive Member, Rurhi Pratha Paramparik Sabha Bachhraon R/o Vill- Bachhraon, Tahsil- Bagicha, Dist.- Jashpur (C.G.) 8 - Murli Yadav S/o Bhulku Ram Yadav Aged About 45 Years Executive Member, Rurhi Pratha Paramparik Sabha Bachhraon R/o Vill- Bachhraon, Tahsil- Bagicha, Dist.- Jashpur (C.G.) 9 - Kedarnath Bhandari S/o Shivprasad Aged About 55 Years Executive Member, Rurhi Pratha Paramparik Sabha Bachhraon R/o Vill- Bachhraon, Tahsil- Bagicha, Dist.- Jashpur (C.G.) 2 10 - Marsel S/o Chirru Aged About 60 Years Executive Member, Rurhi Pratha Paramparik Sabha Bachhraon R/o Vill- Bachhraon, Tahsil- Bagicha, Dist.- Jashpur (C.G.) 11 - Sanpati S/o Jagdish Aged About 48 Years R/o Vill- Bachhraon, Tahsil- Bagicha, Dist.- Jashpur (C.G.) … Applicants versus 1 - Maheshwar S/o Ugrasen Aged About 45 Years R/o Bachhraon, Tahsil- Bagicha, Dist.- Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - Gurbari Ugrasen Aged About 60 Years R/o Bachhraon, Tahsil- Bagicha, Dist.- Jashpur (C.G.) 3 - Narsing Ram S/o Thupa Secretary Rurhi Pratha Paramparik Sabha Bachhraon, R/o Vill. - Bachhraon, Tahsil- Bagicha, Dist.- Jashpur (C.G.) 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Jashpurnagar, Dist. - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicants : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 For Respondent No. 4 : : None present, service report is awaited. Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 22/06/2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. This civil revision has been preferred by the applicants/defendants challenging the order dated 10.03.2026 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bageecha, District Jashpur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. A/31/2023 {Maheshwar & others vs. Loknath & others}, whereby application filed by the applicants / defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) has been rejected. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for applicants/defendants submits that respondents No. 1 & 2 herein/plaintiffs have instituted civil suit for declaration of their title, possession and permanent injunction in respect of suit land (agricultural land) bearing Khasra No. 782/2, area 2.79 acres situated at village Bachhraon, Tahsil-Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.) pleading inter alia therein that the aforesaid land has been granted to their ancestors on lease by the State Government in the year 1975-76. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants/defendants further submits that since it is a specific pleading of respondents No. 1 & 1/plaintiffs themselves that the suit land, which was previously recorded in the revenue records as government land, was granted to their ancestors on lease, therefore, civil suit filed by them was barred by the provisions contained in Section 257 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (henceforth, “Code”), as the said provision prohibits the respondents No. 1 & 2 / plaintiffs to file civil suit against the land acquired through lease, despite that application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC filed by the applicants/defendants has been rejected solely on the ground that the applicants/defendants failed to establish any of the grounds mentioned in Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, even though the suit land is government land and, according to the plaintiffs themselves, that land was granted to the ancestors of respondents No. 1 & 2 /plaintiffs on lease. As such, the civil suit filed by respondents No. 1 & 2 / plaintiffs is barred by the provisions contained in Section 257 of the Code read with Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the CPC, thus, impugned order is illegal. Therefore, he prays that the revision may be allowed by setting aside the impugned order rejecting application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC filed by applicants/defendants and civil suit filed by respondents No. 1 & 2/plaintiffs be rejected. 4 5. Learned counsel for the State / respondent No. 4 submits that the State is formal party to the instant case. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including impugned order and copy of civil suit filed by respondents No.1 & 2/plaintiffs. 7. The respondents No. 1 & 2/ plaintiffs have specifically stated in their pleading in the civil suit that suit land was granted to their ancestors on lease in the year 1975-76 by the State Government. 8. The provisions regarding “Bhumiswami Rights” over government land acquired through a lease are set out in Section 158(3) of the Code, which reads thus :- “158. Bhumiswami. (1) xxxxx (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) Every person- (i)who is holding land in bhumiswami right by virtue of a lease granted to him by the State Government or the Collector or the Allotment Officer on or before the commencement of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1992 from the date of such commencement, and (ii) to whom land is allotted in bhumiswami right by the State Government or the Collector or the Allotment Officer after the commencement of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1992 from the date of such allotment, shall be deemed to be a bhumiswami in respect of such land and shall be subject to all the rights and liabilities conferred and imposed upon a bhumiswami by or under this Code : 5 Provided that no such person shall transfer such land within a period of ten years from the date of lease or allotment. (4) Every person, who is holding land by virtue of [lease of agricultural purpose] granted to him by the State government or the Collector or the Allotment Officer, on the date of completion of 20 years since the date of such allotment, shall be deemed to be a Bhoomiswami in respect of such land and shall be subject to all the rights and liabilities conferred and imposed upon a Bhoomiswami by or under this Code.] (5) Person holding Free-hold Right in Government land allotted under non- agricultural purpose, shall be Bhumiswami in relation to the land. Explanation. - In this section, the expression “Ruler” and “Indian State” shall have the same meanings as are assigned to these expression in Clauses (22) and (15) respectively by Article 366 of the Constitution of India.” 9. Perusal of the aforesaid provision would reveal that whether the lessee has been granted the rights of a 'Bhumiswami' or not, can be determined based on the terms and conditions of the lease granted to the lessee. In the instant case, applicants/defendants have not filed copy of lease in question, therefore, at the initial stage of trial, civil suit filed by respondents No. 1 & 2/plaintiffs cannot be dismissed. 10. Further, civil suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title, possession and permanent injunction against the applicants/defendants on the basis of lease. Whether such lease has been issued by the Competent authority and as to whether “Bhumiswami Right” has been granted / acquired by the 6 respondents /plaintiffs, can be considered and decided by the Court only after oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties. 11. Since suit of declaration of title cannot be decided by the Collector or other Revenue Authorites, rather such civil suit can only be decided by the Civil Court, therefore, the manner in which, civil suit has been drafted and claimed by the respondents No. 1 & 2/plaintiffs, at this stage, contention of learned counsel for the applicants/defendants that suit is barred by the provisions contained in Section 257 of the Code, cannot sustain in law. 12. In view of above, this Court is not inclined to admit the instant civil revision for hearing, hence, the same is hereby rejected at the motion stage itself. 13. Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.06.24 11:07:43 +0530