Chudamani Vs RAMESh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.07.16 10:49:19 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:32263

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WP227 No. 78 of 2024

¶7

Chudamani S/o Jageshwar Thanapati Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Gutkupali, Tahsil - Pusour, District - Raigarh, Civil And Revenue, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Plaintiff/Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Ramesh S/o Bajara Chouhan Aged About 25 Years R/o Village - Kasaipali, Tahsil - Pusour, District Raigarh Civil And Revenue, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District President Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - The Regional Officer Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, TV Tower Road, Raigarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - M/s D.B. Power Limited Village - Bada Darha, Tahsil - Dabhra, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

		... Defendants/Respondents
For Petitioner	:	Mr.Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1	:	Mr. Sourabh Burman, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent No. 2/State	:	Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No. 3	:	Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate
For Respondent No. 4	:	Mr. Anand Shukla and Ms. Sruti Jha, Advocates

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶16

11/07/2025

¶17

The petitioner / plaintiff has challenged the order passed by the District Judge, Raigarh passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 14/2022 dated

¶18

2

¶19

07.12.2023, whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC was dismissed and the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 04.06.2022 was affirmed.

¶20

The facts of the present case are that the petitioner / plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to land bearing Survey No.156 admeasuring 6.53 acres, situated Village Gutkupali, Tehsil Pusour, District Raigarh. The plaintiff pleaded that the suit land was recorded in the name of the predecessor of the plaintiff namely Jambowati in the revenue records of the year 1920 to 1924-25. It is also pleaded that earlier its Survey Number was 156 and it was changed to Survey No. 121. The plaintiff further pleaded that over suit land, a pond, namely Duryodhan was situated. It is further pleaded that the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution to fill up the pond and to alter it to a playground. The District Collector also granted permission. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC was moved by the petitioner and it was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 04.06.2022. The petitioner/plaintiff preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed.

¶21

Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the suit property, which was a water body, ought to have been protected by the Gram Panchayat and District Collector. He would further submit that without any authority of law, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution to fill up the pond. The District Collector also granted permission without having the authority of the law. He would also submit that the suit land was recorded in the name of the petitioner since 1920, and without affording any opportunity, it was recorded as government land. He would further argue that the land

¶22

3

¶23

was acquired by the State without payment of adequate compensation. He would contend that the learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have committed an error of law while rejecting the application moved by the petitioner/plaintiff for temporary injunction. He would pray to allow this petition.

¶24

On the other hand, Mr. Amrito Das and Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsels appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4 would fairly submit that the suit property was recorded in the name of the State since the years 1950-51 and permission was granted by the Gram Panchayat as well the Collector to fill up the pond.

¶25

Mr. Sourabh Burman, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/ defendant No. 1 would oppose.

¶26

Mr. Lav Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the orders passed by the learned courts below.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents.

¶28

Admittedly the suit property, which was earlier a pond, has already been filled up by soil and fly ash by the villagers to change its use from a pond to a playground. A resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat and the Collector also granted permission. At present, the suit property is recorded in the name of the State Government but earlier it was a water body, therefore, there was no authority of law either with the Gram Panchayat or the Collector to grant permission to change its use from a water-body to a playground.

¶29

Taking into consideration the fact that defendant No. 1 has already filled up the pond causing loss to the public at large, respondent No. 1 / defendant No. 1 and any third party are restrained from interfering with

¶30

4

¶31

the possession of the suit property till the final disposal of the suit. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the orders passed by the learned Trial Court dated 04.06.2002 and the Appellate Court dated 07.12.2023 are hereby set aside.

¶32

The observations made in this order would not come in the way of the disposal of the suit.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶35

vatti

Chudamani v. RAMESh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chudamani v. RAMESh

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

Kripal Singh Vs Krishna Kumar

Ghanshyam Vs Rupranjan

Saiyed Haider Ali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Udayram @ Dungru Vs Deleted (Mohit Ram)

Gopal Krishna Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Bairagi Vs State of Chhattisgarh