Union Of India Vs Ram Charan Ratre

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:1974

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

SA No. 108 of 2017

¶6

1 - Union Of India Through Its General Manager, South East Central Railway Zone Office Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ..............Defendant No.1, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Appellant (s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Ram Charan Ratre S/o Bansi Lal Ratre, Aged About 55 Years R/o VillageKhamtarai, Post Office- Baimanagoai, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh .................Plaintiff No.1, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Laxmi Narayan Ratre S/o Late Bahoran Ratre, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Khamtarai, Post Office- Baimanagoai, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh .................Plaintiff No.2, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Vinod Ratre S/o Late Bahoran Ratre, Aged About 22 Years R/o VillageKhamtarai, Post Office- Baimanagoai, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh .................Plaintiff No.3, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Vivek Ratre S/o Late Bahoran Ratre, Aged About 22 Years R/o VillageKhamtarai, Post Office- Baimanagoai, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh .................Plaintiff No.4, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - Smt. Ben Bai Ratre W/o Late Bahoran Ratre, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Khamtarai, Post Office- Baimanagoai, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh .................Plaintiff No.5, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

6 - General Manager, Food Corporation F C I, F C I Office Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh .................Defendant No.2, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

7 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh .................Defendant No.3, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

Digitally signed by KRISHNA KRISHNA KUMAR KUMAR BARVE BARVE Date: 2025.01.13 17:43:07 +0530

¶18

For Appellant (s) : Shri RK Gupta with Shri Rishabh Deo Singh, Advocates.

¶19

2

¶20

For Respondents : Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate. No.1 to 5 For Respondent : Shri BP Gupta, Advocate. No.6 For Respondent : Smt. Neeta T. Thawani, Panel Lawyer. No.7/ State

¶21

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

¶22

Judgment on Board

¶23

13/01/2025 :

¶24

The appellant has preferred the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC challenging the judgment and decree passed by the 10^th Civil Judge Class-2, Bilaspur in CS No.77-A/2013 whereby the suit preferred by respondents No.1 to 5/plaintiffs has been decreed in their favour and permanent injunction has been issued against the appellant herein as well as defendants No.6 & 7, against which an appeal has been preferred by the appellant vide Civil Appeal No.111A/2015, which was also dismissed.

¶25

Respondents No.1 to 5/plaintiffs instituted a civil suit through Power of Attorney of plaintiff No.1 Ram Charan Ratre for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.861, ad measuring 0.33 acre situated at Juna Bilaspur, PH No.22, RI Circile, Tehsil and District Bilaspur. The said civil suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs by 10^th Civil Judge, Class-2, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.77A/2013, vide judgment dated 23^rd July, 2015, by holding that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property and permanent injunction has been issued against the appellant and respondents No.6 & 7. An Appeal has been preferred by defendant No.1 viz Civil Appeal No.111A/2015 before the 6^th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur which

¶26

3

¶27

was dismissed vide judgment dated 27^th August, 2016 by accepting the demarcation report furnished by (PW-4) Sushil Kumar, Revenue Inspector, vide demarcation report (Ex.-P/14) and Panchanama (Ex.P/15). Hence this Second Appeal.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Revenue Inspector in his deposition has admitted that during the demarcation proceeding, he has not prepared the field book, which was necessary as per the Demarcation Rules. Even no proper notice has been served. Further, as per the Panchnama (Ex.-P/15), a bald statement has been made by the Revenue Inspector that witnesses of the concerned Department were present, but they have not singed it. However, the Revenue Inspector has not mentioned the names of officers/employees of the concerned department who represented the department at the time of demarcation and only mentioned that they had refused to sign the Panchnama (Ex.-P/15). Though the civil suit was filed on 12.2.2013, which was pending consideration before the trial Court, however, without any order of the trial Court, demarcation has been done and the same is incomplete demarcation. Both the Courts below on the basis of said demarcation report held that the suit property is the private land of the plaintiffs. Though the land is also adjoining to the municipality, but neither the Municipal Corporation has been made party nor at the time of demarcation, any notice has been served on the said organization. He would further submit that for all the aforesaid reasons, this Appeal may be admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

¶29

“(i) Whether the Courts below were justified in accepting the Demarcation report (Ex.-P/14) and Panchanama (Ex.-P/15) by holding that the subject

¶30

4

¶31

land has been duly identified as Khasra No.861, ad measuring 0.33 acre and granting decree in favour of the plaintiffs, which is perverse on the face of the record?

¶32

(ii) Whether in view of the serious discrepancy in the demarcation report (Ex.-P/14), the matter is required to be remitted back to the concerned trial Court, in the ends of justice?

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned judgments.

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondents have made their appearance and accepted the notice on the above substantial questions of law, and with the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶35

On consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit and the finding on demarcation report (Ex.-P/14) and Panchnama (Ex.-P/15) has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court, though there was serious dispute regarding the identity of the land as to whether the subject land forms part of Khasra No.861, area ad measuring 0.33 acre and whether the land acquired by the appellant/defendant No.1 is the Government land or the land of Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur.

¶36

The Revenue Inspector (PW-4) has categorically admitted in his deposition that at the time of demarcation, he has not prepared the field book, which was necessary as per the demarcation rules. Even Panchnama (Ex.-P/15) does not bear the signatures of the interested parties, whose land is adjoining to the subject land. Even the names of the officers and employees who have refused to sign the Panchnama, have not been mentioned, whereas it was the duty of the Revenue Inspector to mention the names of all the concerned officers/employees

¶37

5

¶38

as after proper notice they have made representation on behalf of the department.

¶39

In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that no proper demarcation has been carried out on the basis of which a finding has been arrived at by both the Courts below.

¶40

For the foregoing, the impugned findings recorded by the Courts below are not sustainable and the same are hereby set aside.

¶41

The substantial questions of law are answered in affirmative.

¶42

The matter is accordingly remitted back to the trial Court with a direction to get the demarcation done afresh. The plaintiffs are also directed to implead the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur as party, whose land is also adjoining to Khasra No.861. After obtaining the demarcation report, the trial Court shall decide the suit afresh after recording the evidence, if any, further adduced by the parties, in accordance with law.

¶43

All the parties are directed to remain present before the trial Court on 25.2.2025 .

¶44

With the aforesaid direction, the Appeal stands disposed of, with no order as to costs.

¶45

A decree be drawn accordingly.

¶46

Sd/(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶47

Barve

¶48

6

Union Of India v. Ram Charan Ratre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Of India v. Ram Charan Ratre

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

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gopinath Vs Smt. Anshu Devi Agrawal (Dead ) Through Legal Heirs-

Akash Saxena Vs Tejuram

Resham Seth Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Parmila Bai Vs Vinod Kumar Kesri and Ors.

Jai Prakash Singh Rajput Vs Nagar Palika Nigam Durg Anors