Dismissed

Smt. Savitri Devi and Ors. v. S.E.C.L. and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC11 Dec 2023SA/170/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding a suit for declaration of title and injunction over land seized for a stadium, the High Court rejected an application for additional evidence. Finding that plaintiffs failed to prove their title or produce the original lease deed, the appeal was dismissed concurrent with lower courts.

What did the court decide?

Application for fresh evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC rejected; Second appeal dismissed; Decree drawn accordingly.

Smt. Savitri Devi and Ors. Vs S.E.C.L… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

SA No.170 of 2012

¶5

1) Smt. Savitri Devi, Wd/o Lt. Jagat Narayan Dubey, aged about 45 years

¶6

2) Vikas Kumar, S/o Late Jagat Narayan Dubey, aged about 25 years.

¶7

3) Ku. Anita D/o Late Jagat Narayan Dubey, aged about 23 years.

¶8

4) Ku. Guddi, D/o Late Jagat Narayan Dubey, aged about 21 years.

¶9

5) Sriram, S/o Late Jagat Narayan Dubey, aged about 14 years. Minor through next friend mother Savitri Devi, wd/o Jagat Narayan Dubey,

¶10

All R/o Village Sardi Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria C.G. Th. General Power Of Attorney Holder, Gulab Dutt Dubey S/o Lt. Kedarnath Dubey, R/o Vill. Sardi, Tah.Kaikunthpur,

¶11

---- Appellants/Plaintiffs

¶12

Versus

¶13

1) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through (A). Joint Director, SECL Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea C.G.

¶14

(B) Chief General Manager, SECL Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.)

¶15

¶16

2) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Koria, District Koria (C.G.)

¶17

---- Respondents/Defendants

¶18

For Appellants/Plaintiffs	: Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/	: Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate
Defendant No.1
For State/Respondent No.2	: Ms. Seema Dixit, Panel Lawyer

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶20

Judgment

¶21

11.12.2023

¶22

1) The appeal is admitted for hearing on the following substantial

¶23

question of law:-

¶24

“Whether both the Courts below were justified in

¶25

-2-

¶26

dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and permanent injunction by recording a finding which is perverse to the record ?”

¶27

2) This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2012 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge Manendragarh, Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.33-A/2010 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-II Baikhunthpur, District Koria (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.96-A/2007 was affirmed.

¶28

3) The facts of the present case are that a civil suit was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for declaration of title and mandatory injunction on the ground that the suit property comprising survey No. 447 admeasuring 0.80 acres was recorded in the names of the plaintiffs in the revenue records whereas respondent No.1 had taken possession of the suit land for construction of the stadium and 10 years ago, a stadium had been constructed. It is further pleaded that the lease deed was issued in favour of the plaintiffs. It is also pleaded that defendant No.1 has neither acquired the land nor sought any consent of the plaintiffs therefore, defendant No.1 may be directed to pay compensation and to provide job.

¶29

4) The defendants filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. They categorically stated that survey No. 447 was never recorded in the names of the plaintiffs. It is further pleaded that the old survey No. 223/2 was renumbered as survey No. 447 and it was

¶30

¶31

recorded as ‘Chhote Jhad ka Jungle’ in the revenue records. It is further pleaded that in the years 1985-86, the plaintiffs in collusion with the revenue authorities recorded their names in the revenue records whereas no lease deed was executed in their favour. It is also pleaded that the names of the plaintiffs were recorded in the revenue records and the Collector vide order dated 03.01.1996 passed the order to remove the names of the plaintiffs from the revenue records and record the land as ‘Chhote Jhad ka Jungle’. It was further pleaded that the stadium has already been constructed and the plaintiffs are not entitled either to compensation or to job in the SECL.

¶32

5) The plaintiffs had produced various revenue documents before the learned Trial Court and an order passed by the Commissioner Division Bilaspur (C.G.) whereby the order passed by the Collector dated 03.01.1996 was set aside. The suit land was renumbered as survey No. 447 from survey No. 223/2. The plaintiffs produced the revenue records of the years 1979 to 1984 to establish that the suit property was recorded as ‘Chhote Jhad ka Jungle’ in the revenue records.

¶33

6) In the present second appeal, the plaintiffs have moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC whereby they have produced the revenue records of the years 1984-85, 1988-89 and 199293. One more document Ex.A/3, notification dated 21.11.1972 has been filed to demonstrate the villages which were not within the purview of the reserved forest with effect from the date of publication of notification in the official Gazette dated 21.11.1972. In that list, Village Sardi is

¶34

-4-

¶35

mentioned at Serial No.90.

¶36

7) Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs would submit that the documents filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC are necessary for a just decision of the case and though the documents were handed over to the counsel for the plaintiffs, the same was not produced before the Courts below, thus, the prayer has been made to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC.

¶37

8) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/defendant No.1 would oppose. Mr Bajpai would submit that though the plaintiffs have filed the revenue records of the years 1984-85, 198889 and 1992-93, these documents were well within the knowledge of the plaintiffs when the civil suit was filed and some of the documents were filed by the plaintiffs along with the plaint which has been exhibited as Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2. A Notification dated 21.11.1972 has been filed as Annexure A/3. This document was published in the official Gazette on 21.11.1972 and in the application, the plaintiffs have not stated why this document was not within their knowledge. The conditions enumerated in Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC have not been pleaded in the application moved under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. The plaintiffs have not stated why they could not file those documents before the learned Trial Court along with the plaint.

¶38

9) Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the reasons stated by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs in the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, this

¶39

¶40

Court is of the view that no good ground is made out to allow the application moved under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. Consequently, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC is rejected.

¶41

10) With regard to substantial question of law, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs would submit that the suit property was recorded in the names of the plaintiffs since the years 1982-83 and they remained in possession for a considerable period; defendant No.1 took the possession of the suit land and constructed a stadium even without following the due process of law. He would further argue that the learned Courts below failed to appreciate the documentary as well as the oral evidence. He would further submit that an order was passed by the Collector whereby the entries made in the revenue records were set aside and a direction was issued to record the land as ‘Chhote Jhad ka Jungle’. He would lastly submit that the evidence available on record was not taken into consideration by the Courts below therefore, the judgment passed by the two Courts below appears to be perverse.

¶42

11) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1 would submit that no lease deed was executed in favour of the plaintiffs and the same has not been produced before the Courts below. He would further argue that survey No. 223/2 was renumbered as survey No. 447 in the revenue records and the same was recorded as ‘Chhote Jhad ka Jungle’ and the Collector vide order dated 03.01.1996, Ex.D/4 has directed the revenue authorities to correct the revenue records. He would further argue that in the order, the Collector has categorically stated that

¶43

-6-

¶44

no lease deed was issued in favour of the plaintiffs. He would also argue that the Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Collector only on the ground that between the period from 1995 to 1997, the power was not conferred with the Collector to exercise suo motu power of revision and in the merits, the Court has not stated anything. He would further submit that the stadium was constructed in the year 1995-96. He would further argue that as the plaintiffs could not prove their title over the suit property, they are not entitled either to compensation or to a job in the SECL.

¶45

12) Ms. Seema Dixit, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the judgment passed by the Courts below. 13) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.

¶46

14) Learned Trial Court has held that in the years 1979-80 to 1983-84 survey No. 223/2, ad-measuring 0.809 hectares was recorded as ‘Chhote Jhad ka Jungle’ and that survey number was renumbered as 447 and the same is evident from Ex.D/1. It is further held by the learned Trial Court that on 03.01.1996, the Additional Collector, Baikunthpur passed the order to correct the revenue entries and directed the revenue authorities to mention ‘Chhote Jhad ka Jungle’ against survey No.447. Learned Trial Court further held that the Commissioner Division Bilaspur had set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector only on the ground that the provisions of Section 50 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 for suo motu revision were not available to the Collector at

¶47

¶48

the relevant time. Learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs could not prove their title over the suit property, therefore, they were not held entitled to get compensation and job in the SECL. Learned Appellate Court after going through the revenue documents and the evidence affirmed the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court.

¶49

15) Though the learned First Appellate Court in para 22 of the judgment has held that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record, at the same time, the learned First Appellate Court itself appreciated the entire evidence and affirmed the final result of the civil suit.

¶50

16) From a perusal of the plaintiffs’ evidence, it appears that the plaintiffs did not appear in the witness box however their power of attorney Gulab Dutta Dubey (PW1) was examined.

¶51

17) In para 10 of the cross-examination of Gulab Dutta Dubey (PW1), he admitted that the original plaintiff was a law graduate and in para 11, he admitted the fact that his father was Patwari in the revenue department. In para 12, he stated that after 1965, a lease deed was issued in favour of the plaintiffs but the lease deed has not been produced before the Court below. He further stated that the original lease deed was not in his possession and he did not make any attempt to get its second copy. In para 13, he has further admitted the fact that on the basis of the lease deed, the name of the plaintiff namely, Jagat Narayan Dubey was recorded in the revenue records but a copy of that mutation register has not been produced in the proceedings. He has further

¶52

-8-

¶53

admitted the fact that on what basis the name of Jagat Narayan Dubey was recorded in the revenue records, he was not aware. In paras 21 and 22, he has admitted that an application was moved for a grant of lease before the Tahsildar but the documents have not been produced.

¶54

18) Ransai (PW2) has admitted the fact that the late Jagat Narayan Dubey was working in the SECL. In para 8, he admitted the fact that the father of the late Jagat Narayan Dubey was Patwari. He has further admitted the fact that when the name of the plaintiff Jagat Narayan Dubey was recorded in the revenue records, he was not aware. He has also admitted the fact that the suit land was recorded in the name of the State Government.

¶55

19) Shyam Bihari (PW3) in para 4 of his evidence stated that there was no dispute when the stadium was being constructed. In para 7, he admitted the fact that when Jagat Narayan Dubey mutated his name in the revenue records, he was not aware.

¶56

20) B.K. Dutta (DW1) has produced the documents and stated that earlier the suit property was recorded in the name of the State Government as ‘Chhote Jhad ka Jungle’. In his cross-examination, he admitted the fact that compensation has not been paid to the plaintiffs and construction of the stadium has already been completed.

¶57

21) From a perusal of the exhibited documents and the evidence, it is quite vivid that the plaintiffs could not produce any documents to establish their title over the suit land and in the absence of any right over the suit property, no compensation can be paid or job can be provided in

¶58

¶59

the SECL.

¶60

22) In light of the above discussions and also going through the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below, the substantial question of law is answered in negative. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶61

23) A decree be drawn accordingly.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶64

Rekha

Smt. Savitri Devi and Ors. v. S.E.C.L. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savitri Devi and Ors. v. S.E.C.L. 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

Salikram and Anr. Vs Maneshwari and Ors.

Bhagwati Vs Nana Bai

Rooprai Suryawanshi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ganesh Prasad Vs Bhagat

M/s J.k.transport Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Devaki Bai Vs Banshi Lal (Dead)