2026:CGHC:25736 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Second Appeal No. 84 of 2018 Nanka, S/o Mehilal, aged about 61 years, R/o Village Patharra, Tahsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ……..(Plaintiff) ---- Appellant Versus 1 - Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division Marwahi, Office At Madna Dipo, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ……..(Defendant No.1) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ………..(Defendant No.2) --- Respondents For Appellant : Shri Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Anand Gupta, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 07.07.2026 1. 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 07.09.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pendra Road, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.77A/2016. 2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appeal filed under section 96 of the CPC by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 01.07.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class - I, Pendra Road, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 02A/2013 was ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.07.17 17:40:05 +0530 -2- affirmed. 3. The case of the plaintiff, as projected, is that a patta in respect of the suit property bearing Khasra No. 687/15 situated at Village Patharra, Tehsil Marwahi P.H. No. 17, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) was granted in his favour by the Allotment Officer during the year 1990–1991. According to the plaintiff, he had planted Eucalyptus trees over the suit property and after sufficient lapse of time the plants are grown. In order to cut the same permission was sought by the plaintiff by the concerned Tehsildaar and the same was granted, pursuant to which the appellant/plaintiff cut the trees. Later on, in order to transport the same, the appellant/plaintiff made an application to the respondents for issuance of transit permit (TP). However, the same was not granted ultimately leading to filing of the civil suit. The defendants/respondents filed a written statement denied the averment of the plaint, inter-alia stating that the original khasra number of the suit land is 687 area of which is consisting of 120.42 acres and the same is recorded in the missal settlement registered as Jungle Kala which is a Government Land and the forest department was possession of the same. The forest department in the year 1992-93 has planted Eucalyptus (Neelgiri) over the subject land and the plaintiff in connivance of the revenue officer recorded his name in the revenue record on the basis of forged patta which does not confer any title on the land, prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Learned Civil Judge framed following issues :- -3- S.No. विद्यक निष्कर्ष 1. क्या वादी इस आशय का आज्ञापका व्यादीश प्राप्त कारने का अधिकार है धिका प्राधिवादी कामांका 01 का द्वार प.है.ने. 17 हैसल मांरवाहै मां खसर नेबर 687/15 रकाब 4.70 एकाड भू$धिमां पर स्थि&' 500 नेग नेलधिगर का वा)क्षों+ का काष्ठ परिरवाहैने है. धिवाधिवा परिरवाहैने अने.ज्ञा पत्र वादी का पक्षों मां जार धिकाय जाय ? अ प्रामांधि1 2. वादी- व्याय एवा अने.+ष ? वादी का वादी सव्याय धिनेरस्त" 5. The parties led their evidence to substantiate their pleading. The learned Civil Judge on assessment material available on record dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. An appeal against such judgment and decree was also dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the patta which was granted in respect of Khasra No. 687/2 in the year 1991-92. Pursuant thereto, the revenue records were duly corrected showing that mutation in the revenue records were made after due process of law indicating there about 500 eucalyptus tree are planted over the suit property. He submits that the Tehlsildaar also granted permission to cut the tree which goes to show that the appellant/plaintiff is the title holder of the suit property is upon which eucalyptus trees were planted and cut down with the permission of the Tehsildaar. He further submits that revenue record and patta (Ex.P/1) also clearly demonstrating of the fact that the suit property of the -4- appellant/plaintiff. Despite this, the appellant/plaintiff has been illegally denied that the transportation of the trees which have been cut down. He submits that the Courts below have not assess the evidence on record to its proper prospective particularly the statement of the appellant/plaintiff and other witnesses, and documents particularly the patta Ex.P/1 and the revenue records showing the possession inclusion of trees and title of the appellant/plaintiff. Thus, he submits that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court as well first Appellate Court rejecting the suit of the appellant/plaintiff are perverse to the record and the substantial question of law as proposed in the memo of appeal arises for consideration before this Court. Thus appeal may be admitted. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents support the impugned judgment and decree. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that the patta was granted in his favour by the allotment officer in respect of property comprised in piece of khasra No.687/2. The submission is made that according to the revenue records, the property mentioned as 687/15 which goes to show that eucalyptus tree are planted on the suit property and permission of the Tehsildaar the same was cut and lying down there and the respondent/State not issuing transit part for transportation of the same. Perusal of the record indicate that though patta (Ex.P/1) was issued in respect of suit property comprised in piece of khasra No. 687/2 by the allotment officer sometime in the year 1991-92. The perusal of the revenue record (Ex.P/10) would indicate that -5- the name of the appellant/plaintiff is recorded in respect of property comprising in piece of khasra No.687/15. Though recital of the revenue record would indicate that under some proceedings the name of appellant / plaintiff was recorded in the revenue record which also indicate that it had 500 eucalyptus trees. The fact remains, it is not the case of the appellant/plaintiff that he has been granted patta on respect of khasra No. 687/15. Whereas on perusal of the statement of the defendant witness who are the Government Officers who have categorically deposed that original khasra number of the suit property is 682 which comprises on the theory of 120.42 acres and in the record it is recorded in missal settlement as ‘Jungle Kala’. It is a well settled position of law that mutation of name in revenue records neither create or extinguishes title. It is only for the purposes of collection of land revenue, even if the name is recorded in the revenue records it would not lead to a conclusion that person is the title holder of said property. This has been clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sawarni (SMT) Vs. Inder Kaur (SMT) & Ors. reported in (1996) SCC 223 and Narsamma & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in (2009) 5 SCC 591. 10.Both the Courts below while deciding the case have meticulously examined the evidence available on record. The learned Civil Judge has categorically held that on what basis, the entries were made in khasra B-1 no cogent evidence was brought on record. It has also given a categorical finding that on the basis of document produced, it does not appear that the appellant/plaintiff was granted patta of the suit property and categorical -6- finding of the fact has been recorded that it is not established that the appellant/plaintiff has planted eucalyptus tree on the suit property which has been granted to him on patta. It has also been observed by the learned Civil Judge that the defendant witnesses have categorically deposed that the disputed land khasra No. 687 area is 120.42 acres which is recorded in missal settlement as “Jungle Kala” which is a Government Land and plantation of eucalyptus tree were done in 1992-93. After noticing that there is a difference of khasra number in the land patta given in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and revenue records and no other documents to suggest the title has been proved, it did not find merits in the case of the appellant/ plaintiff and decided the case against him. The finding of fact so recorded by the learned Civil Judge Court has been affirmed by First Appellate. In the opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law, as proposed in the memorandum of appeal, arises for consideration particularly when there is dispute with regard to identity of land and it is not proved on record with certainty that the Neelgiri Trees were planted on the land which is alleged to have been allotted to the appellant/plaintiff by way of patta that. 11.In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sir 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. -7- 12.No order as to costs. 13.Decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish