1 2026:CGHC:18844 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 108 of 2026 1 - Champeshwar Verma S/o Late Devendra Verma Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kanteli Tahsil And Distt- Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Sanat Verma S/o Late Devendra Verma Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Kanteli Tahsil And Distt- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicants. (Defendants No.1 & 2) Versus 1 - Smt. Lokeshwari Verma W/o Komal Verma Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Gunarbod Tahsil And Distt- Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Smt Sangita Verma W/o Jitendra Verma Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kewachhi Tahsil And Distt- Bemetara (C.G.) (Plaintiffs) 3 - Smt Nageshwari Verma W/o Prakash Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Jiya Tahsil And Distt- Bemetara (C.G.) (Defendant No.3) 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bemetara Distt- Bemetara (C.G.) (Defendant No 4) ... Respondents. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Applicant : Mr. H. B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Asha Nirmalkar, Advocate. For Res No.4/State : Mrs. Akansha Verma, Panel Lawyer. Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 24/04/2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. This Civil Revision has been filed by the applicants (defendants No. 1 and 2) against the order dated 18.03.2026 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (CG) in Civil Suit No.20-A/2025 (Lokeshwari Verma and others vs. Champeshwar Verma and others). By the said order, the application preferred by the applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was dismissed. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants (defendants No. 1 and 2) submits that respondents No.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) filed the aforementioned civil suit for declaration of title, partition, possession, and permanent injunction before the Principal District Judge, Bemetara, regarding the suit lands mentioned in Schedules 'A', 'B', and 'C'. Counsel further submits that since ceiling cases are registered in various courts in respect of the suit land, the civil suit is barred under Sections 6-C and 46 of the Chhattisgarh Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1960 (henceforth the "Act 1960"). Further, the ancestral property of the parties is situated at Village Sirri, Tahsil Kharora, District Raipur; hence, the learned Principal District Judge, Bemetara, has no jurisdiction to hear the case due to lack of jurisdiction. He also submits that the plaintiffs have failed to file any documents to substantiate their contentions regarding the ancestral property. He further referred to the order dated 21.04.1997 (Annexure-P) passed by the Competent Authority cum Sub Divisional Officer, Bemetara, in Ceiling Case No.2A/9(b)(3)88-89 (State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Smt. Rarhinbai, widow of Shiv Singh, and another). 3 In view of above submission, learned counsel submits that by rejecting the applicants/defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC without considering the aforementioned aspects, the impugned order is unsustainable. 4. Perusal of the order (Annexure-P) dated 21.04.1997 passed by the Competent Authority cum SDO, Bemetara, shows that 7.15 acres of land belonging to Smt. Rarhin Bai and Devendra Singh had been declared as excess land. However, no document has been filed by the applicants to prove the identity or Khasra numbers of the said excess land. Furthermore, while the applicants rely on the aforementioned order, but the SDO, Bemetara, had only proposed to declare 7.15 acres as excess land, and no document has been filed by the applicants/defendants before this Court to prove that the said order was ever made absolute. 5. In the present case, by the impugned order dated 18.03.2026, the Principal District Judge, Bemetara, also observed that no documents were filed by the defendants to substantiate their contentions. Moreover, Khasra Nos. 948, 949, and 951, totaling 2.52 acres, were exempted from the ceiling by the above order dated 21.04.1997. 6. Thus, since no were adduced by the applicants/defendants to substantiate the contention that the suit property was declared excess land in a ceiling proceeding, the rejection of such contention by the learned Principal District Judge is found to be just and proper. 7. Furthermore, although the applicants/defendants stated that their ancestral property is situated in Village Sirri, Tahsil Kharora, District Raipur, but they have not provided the Khasra numbers for those lands. Apart from that, whether the suit land is ancestral property or not is a matter to be proved by 4 respondents No. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) during the course of the trial. Therefore, at this stage, the application preferred by the applicants/defendants cannot be allowed on such ground alone. 8. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no perversity or illegality in the impugned order dated 18.03.2026 passed by the Principal District Judge, Bemetara, and the same is hereby affirmed. 9. Consequently, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. 10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay