Ghanshyam Prasad vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

Sanjay Agrawal, J

This Appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') questioning the judgment and decree dated 09.04.2012 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.26-A/2010 by which, the lower appellate Court, while affirming the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2009 passed by the 4th Civil Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.10-A/2009, has dismissed the Appeal.

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Plaintiff-Ghanshyam Prasad instituted a suit claiming declaration that the revenue entries, which have been made while deleting his name from revenue papers by the revenue authorities be declared as null and void as the same has been made without providing opportunity of hearing to him. It is pleaded further that the Defendants, based upon the said revenue entries, are interfering in his peaceful possession, therefore, they may be restrained by way of permanent injunction. It is pleaded further that the suit land bearing Khasra Nos.394/1, 394/2 admeasuring 0.50 acres was provided to him vide lease deed dated 27.07.1979 (Ex.P-1) by Naib Tahsildar under the Revenue Book Circular and thus acquired his Bhumiwami right over the same and without setting aside the said patta, the name of the Plaintiff as recorded in the revenue papers cannot be deleted. The Defendants are, therefore, not at all entitled to interfere in his peaceful possession. Based upon these facts, the Plaintiff has instituted the suit in the instant nature on 28.04.2006.

The Defendants have contested the aforesaid claim and stated that the Plaintiff has not acquired any interest by way of alleged lease deed dated 27.07.1979 as the Naib Tahsildar was not at all authorized to grant such a patta to him under the Revenue Book Circular. It is contested further on the ground that the property in question is recorded in nistar patrak (Ex.D-5) as "chote Jhad ka jungle bade jhad ka jungle", therefore, the same cannot be granted by the said authority to the Plaintiff as claimed by him and no right, whatsoever, would therefore, accrue upon him based upon the said lease deed and he would not be entitled to claim injunction on the basis of the said document.

The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, has come to the conclusion that the Plaintiff has not acquired any interest by way of alleged deed of lease dated 27.07.1979 (Ex.P-1) purported to have been executed by Naib Tahsildar as it was recorded in the nistar patrak (Ex.D-5) as "chote Jhad ka jungle bade jhad ka jungle". While observing as such, the trial Court has dismissed the suit.

The aforesaid finding of the trial Court has been affirmed further by the lower appellate Court in an Appeal preferred by the Plaintiff.

Being aggrieved, the Plaintiff has preferred this Appeal. Shri HV. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the judgment and decree as passed by the Courts below is not at all sustainable in the eye of law. He submits that his name in the revenue papers has been deleted without providing any opportunity of hearing, therefore, the same deserves to be declared as null and void.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the entire record carefully.

The main contention of the Plaintiff while filing the suit is that since his name has been deleted from revenue papers illegally, therefore, the same be declared as null and void. The Plaintiff was, therefore, required to establish the said fact by producing cogent and reliable evidence. However, from perusal of the entire record, it is evident that the Plaintiff has failed to produce any document as to when and how his name has been deleted from the revenue entries. In any case, remedies lie somewhere else for setting aside or correction of the revenue entries. As far as the lease deed dated 27.07.1979 (Ex.P-1) is concerned, the same would also not give any right to him because the property in question as evident from the nistar patrak (Ex.D-5) is shown as "chote Jhad ka jungle bade jhad ka jungle", therefore, the said property cannot be given to him by Naib Tahsildar on 27.07.1979 on lease and no rights whatsoever, as such, would confer upon him based upon the said deed of lease (Ex.P-1). In such circumstances, the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the Naib Tahsildar was not entitled to provide the said property to the Plaintiff on lease.

In view of the foregoing discussions, I do not find any question of law, much less the substantial questions of law which arise for determination in this Appeal. Accordingly, the Appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. There shall be no order as to costs.