1 2026:CGHC:26909 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 42 of 2022 Sukhram S/o Rupan, Aged About 35 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Sendhopara, Tehsil Pratappur, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant / defendant No.1 versus 1 - Shanker S/o Jeedan, Aged About 48 Years Caste Uraon, R/o Village Chungadi, P.S. Bhatgaon, District Surajpur (C.G.) …..Plaintiff 2 - South Eastern Coal Fields Bhatgaon, Through Its Chief General Manager, Bhatgaon, District Surajpur (C.G.) …...Defendant No. 2 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) ............Defendant No. 3 ... Respondents {Cause title, as taken from CIS} For Appellant : Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 2 For Respondent No. 3 : : : Mr. Amarnath Pandey, Advocate Ms. K. Sadhya Rao, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Mr. Arpit Agrwal, Panel Lawyer {Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi} Order on Board 01/07/2026 1. This misc. appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the appellant / defendant No. 1 2 challenging the order dated 5th March, 2022 passed by Upper District Judge, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 06-A/2021 whereby learned Upper District Judge has quashed the order dated 19.03.2021 passed by Civil Judge, Class -I, Pratappur, District Surajpur in Civil Suit No. 10-A / 2021 (Shankar Vs. Sukhram & others) by which, it has allowed the application filed by the appellant /defendant No. 1 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and dismissed the civil suit filed by the respondent No. 1 /plaintiff. [For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred to as per their status shown in the plaint] 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent No. 1/ plaintiff instituted a civil suit before Civil Judge, Class -I, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) seeking relief of declaration of his title on the suit land shown in Schedule 'A' annexed with the plaint, declaration of nullity of sale – deed dated 24.11.2011 got executed in favour of appellant / defendant No. 1, staying the payment of compensation and grant of employment to the defendant No. 1, seeking his own entitlement for the same. Aforesaid civil suit was filed by the plaintiff inter alia on the ground that he is owner of the suit land, to which registered sale deed has been got executed by defendant No. 1 impersonating some other person to be the plaintiff, thus, the sale-deed dated 24.11.2011 has been got executed by the appellant /defendant No. 1 fraudulently. 3. Appellant/defendant No. 1 – Sukhram, after making his presence in aforesaid Civil Suit i.e. 10-A / 2021, preferred an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC stating therein that the civil suit is barred by the provisions contained in Section 63 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity, “Act, 2013”), as the subject suit land has been acquired by the 3 SECL under the Act, 1957. 4. Learned Civil Judge, Class I, Pratappur, vide its order dated 19.03.2021, after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties, allowed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by defendant No. 1 and dismissed the suit in light of the provisions contained in Section 63 of the Act, 2013 read with Section 26 of The Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (henceforth, “Act, 1957”). Against which, respondent No. 1/plaintiff has filed first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC. 5. Learned Upper District Judge, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.), vide impugned order dated 5th March, 2022, set aside the order passed by the trial Court holding that original dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 pertains to title dispute and the entitlement to get compensation, and such a dispute can only be decided by a competent civil court, hence, the order passed by the learned trial Court is not sustainable. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 5th March, 2022, instant misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant / defendant No. 1 questioning the same. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant No. 1 would submit that respondent No. 1/ plaintiff has not only raised title dispute in respect of suit land, rather he has also sought compensation payable against the acquisition of suit land. According to him, such dispute can be decided by the Tribunal constituted under Section 17 (2) of the Act, 1957. In this regard, he also submits that jurisdiction of civil court has been barred under Section 26 of the Act, 1957. It is next contended that even if plaintiff succeeds in civil suit, but title of the land has been vested with the SECL, therefore, the Civil Court is 4 not competent to decide the issue, hence, he prays that the appeal may be allowed and order passed by the trial Court may be upheld by setting aside the impugned order dated 5th March, 2022 passed by Upper District Judge, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.). 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/plaintiff, who is main contesting party to the case, would support the impugned judgment passed by learned Upper District Judge, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.). 9. Counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 would submit that they are formal party to the instant civil suit. 10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. A focused glance of the copy of plaint (Annexure A-3) filed by the appellant /defendant No. 1 show that the plaintiff has filed civil suit stating therein that he was the owner of the suit land, but appellant / defendant No. 1 fraudulently got executed registered sale deed by impersonating some other person to be the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has not only sought declaration of his title over the suit land, rather he has also sought nullity of sale-deed dated 24.11.2011 executed in favour of defendant No. 1. He has also sought relief for staying the payment of compensation and grant of employment to the defendant No. 1 claiming his own entitlement for the same. 12. A perusal of pleading and relief sought for by the appellant / defendant No. 1 would show that main dispute between plaintiff and defendant No. 1 is title dispute in respect of suit land on the basis of pleading that defendant No. 1 has got executed registered sale-deed of his land fraudulently by 5 impersonating some other person to him (plaintiff) i.e. original landlord / sellor. Undoubtedly, such dispute can be decided by the competent Civil Court. Other relief sought for by the plaintiff i.e. staying the payment of compensation and granting employment to defendant No. 1 and claiming his own entitlement for the same, is a contingent relief, which depends on main relief. Therefore, bearing in mind that the main dispute exists between the plaintiff & defendant No. 1 is title dispute in respect of suit land, which, in the opinion of this Court, would be decided by the Competent Civil Court, as there is exclusive jurisdiction of civil court to decide dispute of such nature under Section 9 of the CPC. 13. So far as provisions contained in Sections 17 (2) & 26 of the Act, 1957 is concerned, jurisdiction of Civil Court has been barred under the Act, 1957 pertaining to the issues covered under the aforesaid Act like dissatisfaction with the quantum of award, disbursement of amount of compensation, etc. But, in instant case, the main dispute between plaintiff and defendant No. 1 is title dispute in respect of suit land. Even the term used in Section 17 (2) of the Act, 1957 that “or the title to receive it” also bears the fact that if there is no dispute with regard to title of the land, as main issue. 14. Learned trial Court vide its order dated 19.03.2021 has also observed the provision contained in Section 63 of the Act, 2013, but having considered the issue involved in instant civil suit, as has been observed above, Section 63 of the Act, 2013 also does not bar to consider the instant civil suit. 15. Needless to say that the suit land has been acquired by the SECL under the Act, 1957, therefore, title of the same cannot be transferred to the plaintiff, even if civil suit filed by him is decreed in his favour in respect of title of the land, but if Court reached to the conclusion that subject sale-deed 6 dated 24.11.2011 has been got executed by defendant No. 1- Sukhram fraudulently, then title of the plaintiff will establish over the suit land and in such a situation, he may also held entitled for getting compensation and employment in lieu of acquisition of suit land . 16. During course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 submits that against the acquisition of suit land, compensation has already been disbursed to the appellant/defendant No.1, which he has received also. 17. Be that as it may, plaintiff has to amend his pleading seeking relief of refund of compensation from appellant /defendant No.1, which he illegally received from respondents-SECL. Nothing has to do by respondent No. 2-SECL in respect of main relief sought for by respondent No. 1 / plaintiff. 18. In view of above discussion, impugned judgment dated 5.3.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by Upper District Judge, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) passed in Civil Appeal No. 6-A / 2021 is upheld. 19. Resultantly, the misc. appeal filed by the appellant/ defendant No. 1 fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost (s). 20. As a consequence, stay order granted by this Court on 29.04.2022 shall stand vacated. 21. 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: 2026.07.07 10:58:02 +0530