Allowed

Surajdeo v. the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC1 Jul 2013SA/108/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court allowed an appeal under Section 100 CPC, holding that the lower appellate court erred in setting aside the trial court's decree without contradiction from respondents. The case was remanded to the trial court. (Thin Order)

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and decree of the lower appellate court set aside; matter remitted back to the Trial Court for Taking decision afresh.

Surajdeo Vs the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶2

Second Agpeal No. /C/‘§Q/2001.

¶3

APPELLANT u V Surajdeo, S/o. Ramdeni, aged about PLAIN‘I‘ IFF 47 years, R/oa village Bhawarmal, (Tatapani). Tehg Pal,(Ramanujganj), Distt‘, Sarguja, Chh.

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

DEFENDANTS 1., The State of M.P.(Now State of

¶6

RESPONDENTS Chhattisgarh) , Through Coblector,‘ Sarguja, Ambikapur , DistrictSarguja, Chho D.F.og, North Sarguja, Forest Division. Ambikapur. DistrictSarguj’a, Chh‘ Range officer, Balrampur, At 6: PO. Balrampur, District - Sarguja,^'Chhe

¶7

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CZEVIL PROCEDURE. APPEAL VALUED IN SUM OF RS. 50‘00 AS IN COURTS BELOW. COURT FEES PAID RS. 607AS IN THE LOWER APPELLATE COURT;

¶8

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILAPUR

¶9

(Single^Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharmal J)

5.A. No.108/2001

APPELLANT PIainTiff

Surajcleo

RESPONDENTS 1. The Sfm‘e of MP. (Now Chha’rfisgurh) Defendants 2. D.F.O. NorTh Sarguja, ForesT Division, Ambikapur 3. Range Officer, Balrampur

¶15

Present:

¶16

7^{Mr.A.K‘Prasad,Advoca‘re} for The appeilan’r.

¶17

Mr. GD. Waswani, GOVT. Advocate for fhe respondenfs/Sfa‘re.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(02.07.2013)

¶20

Heard on admission.

¶21

2‘ This appeal is admiHed for considee‘afion or: The following subsfam‘ial question^oflaw:-

¶22

“Whefher‘ fhe lower appellafe CourT was Jusfified in reversing fhe

¶23

judgmem‘^anddecree of The irial Courf wifhouT any confra evidence of fhe respondenfs?

¶24

Wifh The consenT of The parfies, The maTTer is l-eard finally.

¶25

By This second appeal under SecTion 100 of CPC The appellanT has challenged The legaliTy and proprieTy of The judgmenT & decree daTed 18.1.2001 passed by The 2"d AddiTional DisTricT Judge, Ambikapur in Civil Appeal No.14~A/98 reversing The judgmem‘ 6: decree daTed 21.1.1998 passed by The Civil Judge

¶26

Class-II, Ramanujganj in Civil SuiT No.26~A/87.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for The parTies and perused The impugned judgmen’rs and decrees & records of boTh The Courfs below,

¶28

AT The ouTseT, in The presenT case The respondenTs have noT adduced any

¶29

evidence To show cancellaTion of paTTa infer a/fa The appellanT has relied upon one documenT as paTTa buT iT has noT been esTaiJlished by The appellanT ThaT who was.The auThoriTy who has granTed paTTa and iT was revenue land and noT

¶30

‘\ foresT land. In These circumsfances, by decreeing The suiT, The Trial CourT

Page 2 0f2

S.A. No.108/2001

has commif’red illegaliTy and The lower appeIIaTe Cour’r has also commiTTed illegaliTy by reversing The judgmenf and decree of The^{TrialCour‘rwi’rhoufany} comm ma’rer‘id placed by fhe respondenw. The lower‘ appella‘re Cour‘r oughT To have remanded fhe case To The Trial Cour’r for providing oppor’runify of hearing To The parTies^To prove^fhaTwheTher iT was revenue land and noT foresT^{landandavalid} paTTa^hasbeen granTed^{ToTheappellanT.}

¶35

. Consequen1ly, The subsTanTial question^oflaw formulafed for^{decisionofThis} appeal is decided as posiTive.

¶36

¶37

. On The basis of finding on The aforesaid subsTanTial quesTion of law, The appeal is allowed, The impugned judgmenT^{anddecreeofTheIowerappellaTe} CourT is hereby seT aside and The maTTer‘^{isremiTTedbackToTheTrialCourT} for Taking decision afresh afTer providing opporTuniTy of hearing To The parTies To prove Their claim, especially relaTing To granT / canceiiaTion of paTTa^of revenue land and noT The foresT land. The parTies shall remain in attendance before the Court^{belowon12mAuqust,2013.} No order as To cosT //3r/

¶38

/,,^//sl-

¶39

T.^P.Sham” Judge

Surajdeo v. the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surajdeo v. the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Baljeet Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Central Bank of India Vs Shiv Oil Mill and Ors.

Ss.Deepak Vs Dakan Singh

State Bank of India Vs Ajit Singh Bagga and Ors.

M/S Randhir Construction Company Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Krishna Singh Vs Yashwant Kumar