2026:CGHC:25736 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Second Appeal No. 58 of 2019 Vishnu Yadav S/o Late Hirde Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Mohda ,tahsil Kota District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus 1 - S.R. Thakur Occupation Beat Guard Forest Circle Mohda ,forest Division ,tahsil Kota ,district Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - S.K. Nar Nabare Occupation Forest Gaurd Forest Circle Mohda ,forest Division ,tahsil Kota ,district Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - C.L. Rathore Occupation Ranger , Forest Circle Mohda ,forest Division ,tahsil Kota ,district Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Appellant : Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 01.07.2026 1. Heard on Admission. 2. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant assailing the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.55A/2017. 3. By the impugned judgment and decree, First Appeal filed under section 96 of the CPC by the appellant before the First Appellate Court was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 10.04.2017 passed by the learned II Civil Judge Class - II, Kota, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 15A/2015 was affirmed. ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.07.07 17:52:31 +0530 -2- 4. Parties are referred to their status before the learned Civil Judge. The plaintiff who is the appellant herein filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property comprised in piece of khasra No. 249 (part) admeasuring 01.00 Acres situated at Village – Mohda, P.H. NO.40,R.I.C. Rqatanpur, Tahsil – Kota,District – Bilaspur (C.G.) (for short "suit property"). The suit property is bounded by pond on the East, road on the West, pond on the North and road on the South. 5. According to the pleadings of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is a permanent resident of Village – Mohda and earns his livelihood as well as that of his family by performing as agriculturist and working as labourer. The plaintiff's father, Late Hirde Yadav was granted land in Village – Mohda by the Nayab Tehsildaar through Revenue Case No. 922/अ-19/75-76. According to the pleadings, the Government Patta in respect of the suit property was granted in favour of the plaintiff's father, Late Hirde Yadav, S/o Panna Yadav. The plaintiff along with his father was cultivating the suit property during his father's lifetime. After the death of his father, the plaintiff continued to remain in possession of and cultivate the suit property. The defendants are conducting the plantation when they started digging the pit for plantation over the suit property, it was informed that the suit property was received by his father on Patta but they refused and continued the digging the pit. Thus suit for seeking permanent injunction was filed. 6. The plaint averments were denied by the defendants and pleaded that it was a forest land and plaintiff was never in the possession of the said land. The plantation of eucalyptus trees is being done by Forest Development Corporation as per the action plan under Section 20(अ) of Forest Act. No. -3- Forest Patta was shown by the plaintiff. Thus, the suit deserve to be dismissed. 7. On the basis of above following issues were framed :- S.No. विद्यक निष्कर्ष 1. क्या बादी पिता के क्ष में नायबा ताहसीलदीर पिबालसीर द्वार, ग्रामें-मेंहदी, ०ह०ना० 40, र०पिना०में० रतानार, ताहसील केटा, पिल-1. पिबालसीर में स्थिता भू पिमें ख० ना० 249 के टाकेड़ा के ल रकेबा 1.00 एकेड़ा पिसीके चौ%हद्दी  र्व( तालबा, पि)में में रड, उत्तर में तालबा, दीपिक्षण में रड ह. ( र्वदीग्रास्त भू पिमें) ह ता, शासीकेय ट्टा प्रदीना पिकेय गय  ? प्रमेंपिणता 2. क्या प्रपितार्वदीगण द्वार र्वदी के र्वदीग्रास्त भू पिमें सी पिर्वपि4 के सीम्यके 2. अनाक्रमें में बा केब्जा ना केर अन्य पिर्वपि4 पिर्वरुद्ध तारके सी बा दीखल पिकेय ना के प्रयसी पिकेय  रह ह. ? प्रमेंपिणता नाह 3. क्या प्रपितार्वदीगण के र्वदी सीपित्त के सीम्बन्ध में र्वदी के हके एर्व 3. आपि4त्य में स्वय अर्व अन्य पिकेसी के मेंध्यमें सी व्यर्व4ना उत्पन्न केरना ता र्वदीग्रास्त भू पिमें सी बा दीखल केरना सी य पिनाषे 4ज्ञा द्वार पिनाषे पि4ता पिकेय य ? नाह 4. सीहयता एर्व व्यय ? के पिडके के . 11 के अनासीर 8. In order to prove his pleadings, the plaintiff examined three witnesses and exhibited three documents. The defendants did not examined any witness. 9. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, learned -4- Civil Judge has decided the issue Nos. 2 and 3 against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff was also dismissed. Hence this appeal. 10.Learned counsel for the appellant / plaintiff submits that the suit property was given on ‘patta’ to the plaintiff’s father. They were in possession of the suit property from time immemorial from time of his father cultivating of the same. The respondents once granted patta for the father of the plaintiff’s which continued to the respondents and interference in the possession of the plaintiff by the respondent was unwarranted and illegal. The learned Civil Judge as well as the First Appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence to its proper prospective and decided the issue Nos. 2 and 3 against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit and finding recorded by learned Civil Judge has also been affirmed by the learned First Appellant Court without appreciation of the argument advanced by the plaintiff”s. Thus, the substantial question of law has proposed in memo of appeal arises for consideration before the Court for admission of this appeal. Thus, the appeal deserves to be admitted. 11.Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the records of the Court below with utmost satisfaction. 12.The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property was given to his father in a revenue proceedings. Thereafter, according to him his father and later after his death of his father he is in possession of the suit property cultivating upon it. It is a case of a plaintiff when a plantation was carried out by the respondent, they started digging the pit in the suit property which was objected by him and when the same was given on patta, he was -5- constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction. The issue No.1 was framed with regard to granted of Patta in favour of the father of the plaintiff which was found to be proved. The issue No.2 is with respect to whether the plaintiff is being evicted without due process of law. The issue No.3 is with respect to whether permanent injunction can be granted in favour of the suit property. From the perusal by the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge it appears that though patta was granted in favour of the father of the plaintiff but was only for the period of five years from 01/06/1976 and was allowed to have same till the year 1980-81 vide Ex.P-1. After the lapse of the period the patta has lapsed and whether any renewal of that patta was made by the plaintiff or his father is not on record. The learned Civil Judge has also found that if the condition in the patta is fulfilled by the holder, he would be granted Bhumi Swami right in form ‘E’ and after cancellation of the earlier patta, patta in form ‘A’ would be issued. Learned Civil Judge after assessment of evidence found that nothing is available on record that father of the plaintiff was granted in form ‘A’ neither any copy of the same is placed on record. Thus, the learned Civil Judge came to a conclusion that on the basis of Ex.P-1 at present, it does not appear that the plaintiff has any Bhumi Swami right over the suit property. 13.The learned Civil Judge also found that according to Ex.P-2, the suit property is recorded in the revenue record as “Bade Jhaad ke Jungle”. The Civil Judge also observed that this suit property cannot be termed as revenue property rather it’s Forest Land. In this regard, rights over forest land are granted only to Forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers under the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes -6- and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. It has also been stated that there is a procedure prescribed for vesting Forest Rights and the authorized officers are provided in Section 6 of Chapter 4 of the said Act. Finding of fact has also been recorded by the Civil Judge that plaintiff has not presented any evidence to suggest that the defendants are conducting plantation over the suit property nether any Commissioner was appointed to demarcation of land to ascertain the actual position. Thus issue no2 was decided against the plaintiff. With regard to issue No.3, the learned Civil Judge held that the continuous possession has not been proved as no revenue records were presented to show that he is in possession of the suit property. The learned Civil Judge also found that when the possession has not been established no injunction can be granted. Thus, issue No.3 was also decided against the plaintiff. The finding so recorded by the learned Civil Judge has also been affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The learned counsel for the appellant persuade this Court that the finding so recorded are perverse to the record and the plaintiff father had been granted patta, it can safely be assumed that plaintiff was succeeded the same and continuous in possession. Thus, findings are not perverse. This Court was not persuaded with the submission and barring oral statement no documentary evidence to suggest that there was a renewal of the patta or grant of Bhumi Swami right in favour of the father or in favour of the plaintiff. Apart from this, in the revenue record the suit property was recorded as “Bade Jhaad ke Jungle”. Thus by any stretch of imagination it cannot said to be property of the plaintiff. 14.In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sir -7- Chunilal V. Mehta Vs. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1314 and in the matter of Chandrabhan (Deceased) Through LRs. & Ors. Vs. Saraswati & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273 no substantial question of law is involved which is sine qua non for admitting the appeal, the present appeal thus sans merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. 15.No order as to costs. 16.Decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish