Bhuwan Singh Vs Shyamlal

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:11878

¶3

RAGHVENDRAJAT Digitallysigned byRAGHVENDRA JAT

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CR No. 161 of 2024

¶7

1 - Bhuwan Singh S/o Dharam Singh Aged About 34 Years Caste Kanwar, R/o House No. 55/2, Banki Side, Sakti Chauk, Sahu Mohalla, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - Aditya Virat Singh S/o Mangal Bhawan Singh Aged About 31 Years R/o H.N. 69/2, Madwadodha, Banki Mongara (Ward No. 54) M. Coporation, Banki Mongara, Tahsil Katghora District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Applicant(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Shyamlal S/o Patiram Aged About 59 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Mogra Basti, Katghora, Tahsi Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶12

2 - Ful Bai W/o Late Patiram Aged About 74 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Mogra Basti, Katghora, Tahsi Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶13

3 - Sheela Bai W/o Late Hetram Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Mogra Basti, Katghora, Tahsi Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶14

4 - Manish Kumar S/o Hetram Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Mogra Basti, Katghora, Tahsi Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶15

2

¶16

5 - Janmjay S/o Vikram Singh Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Chhirhut Tahsi Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶17

6 - Dhanraj Singh S/o Vikram Singh Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Chhirhut Tahsi Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶18

7 - Ful Kunwar W/o Vikram Singh Aged About 88 Years R/o Village Chhirhut Tahsi Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶19

8 - Kesharchands S/o Bhanwar Singh Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Chhirhut Tahsi Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶20

9 - Harishchandra S/o Bhanwar Singh Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Chhirhut Tahsi Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶21

10 - Amrit Kunwar W/o Bhanwar Singh Aged About 85 Years R/o Village Chhirhut Tahsi Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶22

11 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶23

	... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s)	: Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)No. 1 to 4	: Mr. S.R. Jaiswal, Advocate.
For Respondent/State	: Mr. D.R. Minj, Dy. A.G.

¶24

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶25

Order on Board

¶26

12/03/2026

¶27

By way of this revision, the applicants has prayed for following

¶28

reliefs:-

¶29

“It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble

¶30

Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Revision and

¶31

3

¶32

set aside Order Dated 03.09.2024 which is passed in

¶33

Civil Suit no. 32/2022 in between Shyamlal And Ors Vs. Janmjay And Ors, in the interest of justice.”

¶34

Brief facts of the case, is that, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (Plaintiffs) have filed a civil suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land situated at PHN No. 31, Village Mongara, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, bearing Khasra No. 225/1, admeasuring 1.195 hectares, which forms part of the larger Khasra No. 225. The said land was originally sold by the forefathers of Non-Applicants Nos. 5 to 10 on 18.12.1956 in favour of Patiram. Thereafter, on 30.08.1999, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order in proceedings under Section 170(B) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code in Case No. 125/A-23/95-96. Being aggrieved, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (Plaintiffs) preferred a revision before the Collector, District Korba, and by order dated 13.03.2020 the Collector quashed the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 30.08.1999. Subsequently, when Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 applied for correction of the revenue records of the suit land, they came to know that the suit land stood recorded in the name of the present petitioners, as Non-Applicants Nos. 5 to 10 (Defendants Nos. 1 to 6) had sold the suit land to the petitioners. Consequently, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 instituted the present civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners. The learned trial court issued notices to the petitioners and Non-Applicants Nos. 5 to 10, who filed their written statement.

¶35

4

¶36

Thereafter, the petitioners and Respondent Nos. 5 to 10 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint at the preliminary stage but the same was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 13.07.2023. Subsequently, the petitioners and Respondent Nos. 5 to 10 again filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by law, as the suit land is a tribal land which cannot legally be transferred to a non-tribal person, and the said application is filed. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (Plaintiffs) did not file any reply to the said application, however, by order dated 03.09.2024, the learned trial court rejected the said application filed by the petitioners and Respondent Nos. 5 to 10.

¶37

Learned counsel for the applicants, who are the defendants before the learned trial Court, submitted that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the subject matter of the dispute squarely falls within the ambit of Section 170-B of the Land Revenue Code. It is contended that matters arising under the said provision are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent Revenue Authorities, and therefore the Civil Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present suit. Consequently, it is prayed that in view of the statutory bar on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the plaint is liable to be rejected and the suit deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.

¶38

5

¶39

The plaintiffs, who have appeared before the learned trial Court, have raised an objection to the application by contending that the sale deed in question was executed on 18.12.1956, which is prior to the commencement of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code that came into force on 02.10.1959. It is therefore submitted that the provisions of Section 170-B of the Land Revenue Code are not applicable to the present case and, consequently, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, the learned trial Court adjudicated the application and held that the principal relief sought by the plaintiffs is the declaration of title over the suit property, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The trial Court further observed that while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only the averments made in the plaint are required to be taken into consideration. On the basis of the averments contained in the plaint, the Court found that the suit does not appear to be barred by any provision of law, and accordingly, the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was dismissed.

¶40

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶41

From the bare perusal of the record, it appears that the dispute pertains to a sale deed executed on 18.12.1956, which is admittedly prior to the commencement of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code that came into force on 02.10.1959. In such

¶42

6

¶43

circumstances, the objection raised by the applicants regarding the bar of jurisdiction under the said Code does not appear to be sustainable at this stage. Moreover, the issues sought to be raised by the applicants involve questions that require proper adjudication on the basis of evidence and are therefore matters that ought to be considered during the course of trial after the framing of appropriate issues by the learned trial Court. Consequently, the objection raised by the applicants cannot be entertained at the preliminary stage.

¶44

Accordingly, the revision filed by the applicants is hereby dismissed.

¶45

Sd/(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶46

Raghu Jat

Bhuwan Singh v. Shyamlal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhuwan Singh v. Shyamlal

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

Deegendrakant Verma Vs Union of India

Mohd. Sadik Momin Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Local Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Urmila Kumhar

Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Singhaniya Construction Com. Vs Smt. Janki Devi

M/S Singhaniya Construction Com. Vs Smt. Laxmin Bai