Disposed¶34

Shri Ramchandra Swami @ Bhaghirathi Mandir Trust, v. Atmaram Khatwani

Chhattisgarh HC11 Sept 2024WP227/614/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP227 614/2022; Article 227 Constitution; Order 26 Rule 9 CPC; local investigation; demarcation; batankan; revenue map; Tehsildar Raipur; Commissioner Raipur Division; Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue second revision 19.12.2022; Civil Suit No.284A/2015; identification of disputed land; Shri Ramchandra Swami @ Bhaghirathi Mandir Trust v. Khatwani; disposal with directions; 3-month completion timeline; trial court to proceed in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with directions: the concerned Tehsildar to complete the pending demarcation proceedings expeditiously, preferably within 3 months from receipt of copy of the order; petitioner/plaintiff thereafter to file the demarcation report before the concerned trial Court, which shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. ¶34

Shri Ramchandra Swami @ Bhaghirathi Mandir… — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether, notwithstanding the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, the pending demarcation proceeding (commenced pursuant to the Revenue Board's direction of 19.12.2022) should be completed by the Tehsildar rather than the application being allowed afresh. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

Considering that the demarcation proceeding had already been commenced in pursuance of the direction given by the Revenue Board, this Court deemed it appropriate to direct the concerned Tehsildar to complete the said proceedings in an expeditious manner, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, instead of allowing the Order 26 Rule 9 CPC application afresh.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The question as to whether the subject land falls in the land of the plaintiff or the defendant could be decided after demarcation; Order 26 Rule 9 CPC enables the Court, in any suit in which a local investigation is requisite or proper for elucidating a matter in dispute, to order such investigation.

¶33

Key takeaways

After completion of the demarcation, the petitioner/plaintiff shall file the report before the concerned trial Court, and the trial Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 (WP227 No. 614 of 2022), High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, decided 12/09/2024. The petitioner-trust, plaintiff in Civil Suit No.284A/2015 before the 8th Civil Judge Class 1, Raipur, challenged the trial court's order dated 12.08.2022 dismissing its application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for local investigation/demarcation of disputed land. The plaintiff had sued on the basis of a demarcation report dated 07.08.2015 of Tehsildar, Raipur, which the Commissioner, Raipur Division set aside on 04.12.2017; a second revision before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue ended with an order dated 19.12.2022 upholding the Commissioner's decision but directing that, after batankan on the revenue map, a fresh demarcation be carried out so that the land of both parties is identified. Despite objections by the defendants when that proceeding began, the High Court held that the question whether the subject land belongs to the plaintiff or the defendant could be decided after demarcation, and since the demarcation proceeding had already commenced pursuant to the Revenue Board's direction, disposed of the petition by directing the concerned Tehsildar to complete the demarcation expeditiously, preferably within 3 months, with the plaintiff thereafter to file the report before the trial court, which was to proceed in accordance with law.

1 / 4

2024:CGHC:35882

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 614 of 2022

¶6

Shri Ramchandra Swami @ Bhaghirathi Mandir Trust, Golbazar, Raipur Through Chief Trustee And Sarwakara, Arun Kumar Dubey, Aged About 55 Years S/o Late Ravishankar Dubey, Bhaghirathi Dubey Mandir, Nayapara, Golbazar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner/Plaintiff.

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Atmaram Khatwani S/o Late Gurumuk Das Khatwani Aged About 62 Years.

¶10

2 - Smt. Rani Kotwani W/o Shri Ashok Kotwani Aged About 58 Years. 3 - Smt. Laxmi Gurbani W/o Shri Sunil Gurbani Aged About 56 Years.

¶11

4 - Smt. Jaya Khatwani W/o Late Narendra Khatwani Aged About 55.

¶12

5 - Suni Khatwani S/o Late Narendra Khatwani Aged About 32 Years All R/o Telibhanda, Gali No. 05, Raipur Tahsil - Raipur District - Raipur

¶13

Chhattisgarh.

¶14

6 - Amar Kumar Tolwani S/o Uttamchand Tolwani Aged About 60 Years R/o Phase - 2, Shri Ram Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

7 - Sonia Sharma S/o Shri Madanmohan Bhaglal Aged About 44 Years

¶16

2 / 4

¶17

Through Power Of Attorney, Pawan Sharma S/o Madanmohan Bhaglal, R/o Shanti Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

... Respondents/Defendants

¶19

For Petitioner : Shri Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Balraj Gupta appears on behalf of Shri No.1, 4 & 5 Devershi Thakur, Advocate.

¶20

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

12/09/2024

¶23

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and validity of order dated 12.08.2022 passed by 8^th Civil Judge Class 1, Raipur in Civil Suit No.284A/2015 whereby, an application preferred by petitioner/plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, was dismissed.

¶24

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner, on the basis of demarcation report dated 07.08.2015 of Tehsildar, Raipur has filed the civil suit. During the pendency of the said civil suit, Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur set aside the said demarcation report vide its order dated 04.12.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred a second revision before Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur circuit court, Raipur and vide order dated 19.12.2022, while upholding the order of Commissioner a direction has been issued to Tehsildar, Raipur that after batankan is made on the revenue map, a fresh demarcation shall be carried out and the land of both the parties shall be identified. When the

¶25

3 / 4

¶26

said proceeding was started by Tehsildar, Raipur an objection has been raised by the respondents/defendants.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that revenue map has been corrected and batankan has been made and only proceeding of demarcation remains. He would further submit that the dispute is with respect to identification of the land and the same cannot be decided only on the basis of oral evidence, which is not sufficient for the purpose of establishing such fact. He would further submit that either the application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC may be directed to be allowed or the pending proceeding of demarcation may be directed to be completed, at the earliest.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the revenue map, no batankan has been made so far. Therefore order passed by the trial Court is just and proper which does not warrants any interference.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully.

¶30

In the case at hand, there is a serious dispute with regard to identity of the land in dispute. Though for an earlier demarcation the present suit was filed but subsequently, in Revision, the said demarcation was set aside and further a direction was issued by the Revenue board vide its order dated 19.12.2022 that after batankan on the revenue map is made, a fresh demarcation shall be carried out so that land of both the parties get properly identified. After such direction, the defendants/respondents have again raised an objection for such proceedings.

¶31

The question as to whether the subject land falls in the land of plaintiff or

¶32

4 / 4

¶33

defendant could be decided after demarcation. Order 26 Rule 9 CPC enables the Court that in any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute but considering the fact that the same proceeding has already been commenced in pursuance of the direction given by Revenue Board, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the concerned Tehsildar to complete the said proceedings in an expeditious manner preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Thereafter petitioner/plaintiff shall file the report before the concerned trial Court and in turn, the concerned trial Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

¶34

With the aforesaid observation/direction, instant petition is disposed of.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Avinash

Shri Ramchandra Swami @ Bhaghirathi Mandir Trust, v. Atmaram Khatwani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Ramchandra Swami @ Bhaghirathi Mandir Trust, v. Atmaram Khatwani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

High Court of Chhattisgarh Vs Lokeshwar Singh Thakur

Umashankar Pandey And Anr. Vs The Municipal Corporation Bhilai

Gopal Vs Baishakhu And Ors.

Smt. Radha Bai Vs Vijay Kumar Sinha

Anil Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suraj Kumar Mishra Vs Megha Sadanand Jha