Allowed

Surat Lal v. Rajendra Gupta and Others

Chhattisgarh HC6 Oct 2024FA/111/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal, the Chhattisgarh High Court set aside the trial court's dismissal of a suit for declaration of title and injunction based on an erroneous calculation of land area. The High Court found the plaintiff was the rightful owner of 0.20 acres and decreed the suit in his favor.

What did the court decide?

The suit was decreed; title declared to Survey No. 1076/10 (0.20 acre); possession granted; Rs.1,10,597 with interest payable.

Surat Lal Vs Rajendra Gupta and Others — Landlord and Tenant | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI

¶3

2024:CGHC:39697

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶6

First Appeal No. 111 of 2009

¶7

Surat Lal, S/o. Shri Latelram Sahu, Aged about 42 years, R/o. Village Tifra, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶8

---- Appellant/Plaintiff

¶9

Versus

¶10

Rajendra Gupta, Aged about 52 years, R/o. Songanga Residential Premises, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶11

Tahsildar, Bilaspur, Tahsil Office – Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

---- Respondents/Defendants

¶14

For Appellant/Plaintiff : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocates For Respondent No.1/ : None though served Defendant No.1 For Respondents No. 2 & 3/: Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Defendants No. 2 & 3

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board

¶16

07.10.2024

¶17

The appellant/plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the VIII^th Additional District Judge (FTC), Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 46-A/2005 dated 16.02.2009, whereby the civil suit filed by the plaintiff

¶18

¶19

for declaration of title, permanent injunction and damages of Rs.1,10,597/- was dismissed.

¶20

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and perpetual injunction against the defendants and also claimed compensation of Rs.1,10,597/- for illegal demolition of the construction inter alia on the ground that Survey No. 1076/10 admeasuring 0.20 acre is recorded in his name, situated at Village Tifra, Tehsil and District Bilaspur. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff raised the construction of a small shop over 500 sq. ft. The plaintiff completed the construction of basement work over 500 sq. ft. Defendant No.1/respondent No. 1 on 22.02.2004 stopped the work. On 21.02.2004, the Tehsildar, Bilaspur issued a show cause notice to the plaintiff. On 26.02.2004, he filed a reply. The Tehsildar behind the back of the plaintiff passed certain orders and on 15.03.2004, the construction raised by the plaintiff was demolished. The plaintiff collected the documents and then came to know that according to the decision taken by the revenue authorities, the plaintiff is the owner of only 0.10 acres of Survey No. 1076/10 over which a house is already constructed.

¶21

Defendant No.1 filed a written statement and denied the plaint averments. It is pleaded that due to a mistake, 0.20 acre of land was recorded in the revenue records in favour of the plaintiff, whereas actually he is the owner of 0.10 acre and he has encroached on the grassland.

¶22

The learned trial Court framed issues and found most of the issues not prayed and thus, finally dismissed the civil suit.

¶23

¶24

Mr. B.L. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff, would refer to the demarcation report Ex. P/23 and would submit that the calculation of a total of 3.64 lands of Survey No. 1076 is not correct. He would further refer to other documents, such as Ex. P/23 and Ex. P/24 and would submit that in the name of the father of the plaintiff, namely, Sudharam 0.92 acre of land was recorded. Sudharam sold many plots to various persons and finally the remaining plots admeasuring 0.20 acres were recorded in the name of the plaintiff. He would further submit that there is an error in the calculation of the learned trial Court and, therefore, the judgment and decree suffer from factual error. It is contended that the plaintiff had restarted raising construction after sanctioning the map and obtaining due permission from other departments. It is further contended that the chart prepared by the learned trial Court would show that out of 3.64 acres of the area of Survey No. 1076, 2.72 acres of land is recorded as grassland. He would also contend that the learned trial Court committed an error in deducting the area of 2.72 acres from 3.64 acres and as per the trial Court, the answer was 0.76 acres whereas the correct figure would be 0.92 acres and the entire calculation was done by the learned trial Court taking the remaining area of plot as 0.76 acres. He would argue that the plaintiff is the owner of the property; the suit property was recorded in the name of his father Sudharam; it was transferred in the name of the plaintiff after the death of Sudharam and he is the title holder as well as the owner of the property. It is also argued that respondent No.1, who is not an aggrieved party, raised objection when construction was being raised by the plaintiff.

¶25

¶26

On the other hand, Mr. Khulesh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No. 2 and 3, would oppose. He would submit that according to the demarcation report Ex. P/23, due to a clerical mistake, 0.20 acre of land of Survey No. 1076/10 was recorded in the name of the plaintiff and the same was rectified by the revenue authorities. It is also contended that the plaintiff failed to prove his case by leading clinching evidence. He would contend that the civil suit filed by the plaintiff was rightly dismissed by the learned trial Court.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the trial Court.

¶28

As per Ex. P/1, Ex. P/2 and Ex. P/5 plot bearing Survey No. 1076/10 admeasuring 0.20 acre is recorded in the name of the plaintiff. Ex. P/3 is the map of Survey No. 1076 and other adjacent lands. Ex. P/4 would show that Survey No. 1076/2 admeasuring 0.26 acre was recorded in the name of Sudharam in the year 1998-99. Ex. P/6 is the map sanctioned by the Gram Panchayat, Tifra in favour of the plaintiff. Ex. P/8, Ex. P/9, Ex. P/10, Ex. P/11 and Ex. P/12 are receipts of the purchase of construction material. Ex. P/12 is a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the construction which was being raised. A notice was issued to the plaintiff by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Tifra on 19.03.2004. Ex. P/16 is the order sheets of the Court of Tehsildar. Ex. P/18 is the demarcation report dated 01.09.2003, here also the total area of Survey No. 1076 is 3.64 acres and after deducting 2.72 acres, the remaining land is shown as 0.76 acres. Ex. P/24 is the record of rights

¶29

¶30

wherein 0.36 acres of land is recorded in the name of Sudharam as he sold 0.04 acres to one Jhadiram and 0.10 acres to one Kanhaiyalal. Defendant No. 1 filed the order-sheet of the Court of Tehsildar vide Ex. D/1. Statement of one Dhirendra Singh is Ex. D/2. Report of Patwari dated 19.02.2004 with regard to encroachment is Ex. D/3. Map is Ex. D/4. Revenue records of Survey No. 1076/1 admeasuring 2.50 acres recorded in the name of Government of Madhya Pradesh is Ex. D/5. Ex. D/6 is a copy of the encroachment register where the name of the plaintiff is mentioned. Ex. D/7 is the demarcation report. Ex. D/8 is an application moved before revenue authorities by Laghu Vyavsai Kalyan Samiti dated 16.02.2004. Ex. D/10 is a reply to the notice filed by the plaintiff. Ex. D/11 is a photograph of construction which was being raised by the plaintiff. The learned trial Court prepared a chart as

¶31

under:-

¶32

dz0	[kljk uacj	jdck	en
1&	1076@1	2-50	?kkl
2&	1076@2	0-06	lq/kkjke o0 jkHkjksl
3&	1076@3	0-13	yrsy
4&	1076@4	0-13	HkksanwmQZ jkenqykjs o0 /kuok
5&	1076@5	0-22	?kkl cktkj
6&	1076@6	0-10	yrsy
7&	1076@7	0-04	jk/ks’ojh
8&	1076@8	0-16	fuHkZ;
9&	1076@9	0-10	ekfydjke
10&	1076@10	0-20	lwjryky oYn yrsyjke
---------- ;ksx	-------------------------- 10	-------------------------- 3-64 ,dM+	------------------------------------------------------

¶33

¶34

and held that after deducting 2.72 acres of grassland out of 3.64 acres, the balance area would be 0.76 acres, thereafter, the plots sold by the plaintiff and his father were deducted and it was finally found that due to a clerical mistake, 0.20 acres of Survey No. 1076/10 was recorded in the name of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court has copied the findings recorded by the revenue authorities in the demarcation report Ex. P/18. The calculation done by the revenue authorities and relied on by the learned trial Court appears to be incorrect as after deducting 2.72 from 3.64 acres, the balance would be 0.92 acres. The father of the plaintiff sold 0.72 acres of land and out of 0.92 acres, the remaining area was 0.20 acres, the same was recorded in the name of the plaintiff and the revenue records also reflect the same area.

¶35

From the documents exhibited by the plaintiff, it is also clear that the construction was being raised by the plaintiff on the part of Survey No. 1076/10 area 0.20 acre and respondent No.1 raised an objection. An inquiry was also conducted by the Tehsildar and behind the back of the plaintiff, an order was passed. The respondent authorities pursuant to the order passed by the Tehsildar, Bilaspur, demolished the construction which was being raised by the plaintiff.

¶36

From the above-mentioned chart, it is apparent that in the name of the plaintiff 0.20 acre land of Survey No. 1076/10 was rightly recorded by the revenue authorities and the plaintiff has not encroached over government land. The respondent authorities have committed illegality in taking steps to demolish the construction raised by the plaintiff, whereas the plaintiff was the title as well as possession holder of the

¶37

¶38

suit property. The learned trial Court has committed an error in calculating the correct area recorded in the name of the plaintiff, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside.

¶39

The suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed. The plaintiff is declared title holder of the suit property i.e. Survey No. 1076/10 admeasuring 0.20 acre; the defendants are restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, and the defendants are directed to make payment of Rs.1,10.597 with interest @ 6% jointly and severally from the date of institution of the civil suit.

¶40

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. No cost(s).

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶43

vatti

Surat Lal v. Rajendra Gupta and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surat Lal v. Rajendra Gupta and Others

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

Mangal Vs Kamol Singh (died) Through LRs

Cg.Rajya Shaikshanik Seva Sangh and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

M/S Sindh Ispat Vs Shri Rupanadham Steel Private Limited

Zila Shakari Krishi Avam Gram Vikas Ba Vs Gulab Singh and Others

Dr. Ajab Singh @ Churavan Singh Parihar Vs Amar Singh Parihar

Amar Singh Parihar And Ors. Vs Churawan Singh Alias Ajab Singh Parihar And Anr.