2026:CGHC:25736 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Second Appeal No. 461 of 2017 1 - Gokul Sahu, S/o Jethu Ram Sahu, aged about 58 years, R/o Village Chamari Chitragupt, Police Station And Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, 2 - Punni Das Sahu, S/o Shri Baisakhu Sahu, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Chamari Chitragupt, Police Station And Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 3 - Vivek Das @ Bhikhari, S/o Shri Baisakhu Sahu, aged about 43 years, R/o Village Chamari Chitragupt, Police Station And Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, 4 - Kumar Sahu, S/o Mathura Prasad, aged about 41 years, R/o Village Chamari Chitragupt, Police Station And Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, 5 - Shri Ram Sahu, S/o Mathura Prasad, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Chamari Chitragupt, Police Station And Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, 6 - Salik Ram Sahu, S/o Ganesh Sahu, aged about 38 years, R/o Village Chamari Chitragupt, Police Station And Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, 7 - Sonu Sahu, S/o Ganesh Sahu, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Chamari Chitragupt, Police Station And Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ............... Defendants ---- Appellants Versus 1 - Dhani Ram @ Ram Kumar, S/o Bhaktu Ram Sahu, aged about 43 years, R/o Village Chamari Chitragupt, Police Station And Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ........................ Plaintiffs --- Respondents For Appellants : Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 /State : Shri Anand Gupta, Dy. Government Advocate. ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.08.10 17:00:51 +0530 -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 05.08.2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. By filing this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’), the appellants have assailed the legality, correctness and validity of the judgment and decree dated 19.05.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 29-A/2016. 3. By the judgment impugned and decree, the learned Additional District Judge has dismissed the First Appeal of the plaintiff filed under section 96 of the CPC and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2015 passed by the learned II Civil Judge Class – I (for short “Civil Judge”), District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 130-A/2014. 4. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per by their status quo before the learned trial court. 5. The respondent No.1 who happens to be the plaintiff filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge seeking permanent injunction in respect of suit property comprised in piece of Khasra Nos. 21 area 6.30 acres situated at Village – Chamari (Chitragupt) P.H. No. 10/24 R.N.M. and Tahsil – Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.). 6. The admitted fact in this case is that the suit property is a Government Land. 7. The fact as projected in the plaint is that on some portion of suit property a -3- pond is constructed which was being used for the “Nistaar” of the villagers. The property of the plaintiffs is comprised in piece of Khasra No.22/5 upon which his house and courtyard is constructed. Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 have encircled the suit property situated in front of the plaintiffs' property with barbed wire and have constructed a Kabir Kuti thereon, thereby obstructing and restraining the plaintiff's access to his residential house. Land comprised in piece of khasra No.22/5 area1.41 Acres which is adjacent to the suit land is jointly recorded in the name of plaintiff and his brother – Ajuram in the revenue records. The partition between them has already taken place and the properties situated in Palansari main road has come in favour of his brother – Ajuram and the property situated in the South has come in faovur of the plaintiff. Both of them are in possession of their respective share and cultivating the same. The plaintiff has been using the Government land situated on the eastern side of the suit property for access. However, defendant Nos. 1 to 7 have illegally constructed the Kabir Kuti by putting barbed-wire fencing and thus blocked the way of the plaintiff. 8. Plaintiff moved an application to remove the illegal possession. A report was called from the Halka Patwari where defendant Nos. 1 to 7 were found in illegal possession of 6.30 acres of land of khasra No. 21, and that the way of the plaintiff and the drainage system from his land had been blocked. The Tehsildar passed an order directing removal of the encroachment. As the said order was not complied with, the Tehsildar visited the spot on 30.05.2013, inspected the site and prepared a Panchnama. Upon inspection, he passed an order directing that no person shall occupy the land situated on the northern side of the Kabir Kuti, measuring 72 feet and -4- on the southern side measuring 26 feet. The said land was being used by the plaintiff and others as a passage and for Nistaar purposes. Despite that order the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 again blocked it by way of barbed wire and stopped the public way. Apart from this, they are trying to plant trees on the way. Thus seeking the above stated relief, the suit was filed. 9. Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 filed their written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that a 26-feet-wide passage is still open and plaintiffs use the said passage for access and communication. Plaintiff wanted to possess the suit property, he did not want the construction of Kabir Kuti to take place. 10.It was further pleaded that the plaintiff himself has conducted illegal work, he has no right to use the Government land for Nistaar purpose. He has encircled the property from all corner. Thus prays for dismissal of the suit. 11. On the basis of above broad pleadings, the learned Civil Judge framed the following issues :- कक द न नक 1. म चम (च ) प०ह०० 10/24, ००० म तह म म त ख ब 21 फ 6.30 एक क !द# $%म प &त!द क० 1 7 ' ब( उ*+ क !द क, उक -. ए! आ(प0 क ख ब 22/5 क $%म प आ- त अ2 त &3,, ब(त क3 ह ह4?" 2. " ह3त ए! 53?" !द शल त 12. Learned trial court has decreed the suit and granted injunction against -5- defendant Nos. 1 to 7. Thereafter, the defendants preferred the First Appeal before the First Appellate Court which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence, this appeal. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the finding with respect to the issue No.1 recorded by the learned trial court ans subsequently affirmed by the First Appellate Court is bad in law, perverse and contrary to the evidence. He submits that admittedly, the injunction has been sought on a Government Land which cannot be granted. He further submits that the plaintiffs could not prove its case by cogent and prudent evidence. The substantial question of law has proposed in the memo of appeal be formulated and appeal be admitted. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the dispute is between the private parties. 15. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records of the Court below with utmost circumspection. 16. The question as to whether on the suit property the defendant Nos.1 to 7 are objecting to the plaintiff from reaching to his property at khasra No.22/5. Issue which requires to be proved by the plaintiffs is of the issue of fact. The learned trial Court while deciding the suit, relying upon the statement of plaintiff PW-1 - Ram @ Ramkumar, PW-2 - Sonu and PW-3 – Taran Das. While discussing the evidence led by the parties in paragraph-13 relied upon the spot inspection report, also the spot map as Ex.P-5 and Panchanama as Ex.P/7 which clearly goes to show that 26 feet road is not open and it has been encircled by the defendants by barbet wire. The -6- learned trial Court gave a categorically finding that opposite the khasra No.22/5 (property of the plaintiff) with defendants have constructed the Kabir Kuti on 11 X 25 sq.feet along the north side planted trees and on account of encircling barbet wire, the general nistaar has been objected. On assessment of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court gave a categorically finding that defendants have planted a tree putting mud because of which the plaintiff would face difficulties in using land for public way and nistaar which is reflected from Ex.P/4 inspection report and decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff holding it to be in affirmative. This finding of fact has been affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the injunction cannot be granted on Government Land. His submission is misplaced and is liable to be dismissed. The case of the plaintiff is that infront of his own land, the defendants have constructed the Kabir Kuti and trying to put barbet wire, and also by putting plantation the way to reach the property is being obstructed. The documents including the spot inspection of the Tehsildaar and the statement of defendants led to recording of finding in respect of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. In the opinion of the Court, the plaintiff is not claiming any injunction by keeping himself in the possession of the Government Land. Injunction is only sought for use of the Government land to reach to the house. Thus, the submission made by Shri Patel, Advocate does not appear to have any force. It is rejected. 18.In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. Vs. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1314 and in the matter of Chandrabhan -7- (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 and hereby dismissed. 19. No order as to costs. 20.Decree be drawn accordingly. -Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish