State Of Chhattisgarh vs Pawan Kumar Agrawal

Sanjay S. Agrawal, J

This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs/State under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, questioning the illegality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2016 passed in Civil Suit No.183-A/2014, whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim. The parties shall be referred hereinafter as per the descriptions before the Court below.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/State instituted the suit claiming declaration of title, injunction and for possession with regard to the land in question admeasuring 13.95 acres situated at village Bilkona, Tehsil and District Bilaspur, as described detailed in Plaint Schedule ‘A’ by submitting interalia, that it was owned by one Chunni Lal Mehta, the father of defendant No.3-Avinash Mehta, against whom a land acquisition proceeding was initiated along with his wife-Smt. Kshama Devi. According to the plaintiffs, the land in question was acquired in the name of plaintiff No.1 (Government Cattle Breeding Farm, Government Dairy Farms, Sarkanda) vide order dated 06.08.1952 and 08.08.1952 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.11/16-5/1950-51 and the possession was, accordingly, delivered and the revenue papers were mutated in the name of the said plaintiff.

It is pleaded further that despite the acquisition of the land in question as such, a suit, being Civil Suit No.14-A/1988, was instituted by said Chunni Lal Mehta’s legal representatives, i.e., his wife Kshama Devi and son Avinash Mehta seeking declaration of title with regard to the land in question by alleging interalia that neither the same was acquired nor the compensation of it was paid and in the said suit, a decree was drawn in their favour vide judgment and decree dated 23.03.1989. It is pleaded further that since the alleged decree was drawn after the acquisition of the alleged suit land, therefore, it deserves to be quashed. Further contention of the plaintiffs is that after obtaining the decree in the said suit, the land in question was sold by them to the wife and daughter of defendant No.1- (Pawan Kumar Agrawal), namely, Smt. Bela Devi and Laxmi, respectively in December 1990 and after the death of wife, it was mutated in his (defendant No.1) name. It is pleaded further that by taking undue advantage of mutation, the defendants 1 & 2 have illegally encroached the land in question which led to the institution of the suit in the instant nature, instituted on 09.05.2008.

While contesting the aforesaid claim, it was pleaded by defendants 1 & 2 that a suit, being Civil Suit No. 14-A/1988, was instituted by the legal representatives of said Chunni Lal with regard to the land in question against the State for declaration of title, where the decree was drawn vide judgment and decree dated 23.03.1989 and which has attained its finality by efflux of time and, immediately thereafter, the land in question was sold in December 1990 to the wife and daughter of defendant No.1. Therefore, the suit as framed and instituted deserves to be dismissed.

After considering the evidence led by the parties, it was held by the trial Court that by virtue of the judgment and decree dated 23.03.1989, the predecessors-in-interest of defendant No.1 were declared the owner of the land in question in Civil Suit No.14-A/1988 and which has attained its finality, therefore, under such circumstances, the plaintiffs/State cannot be declared to be the owner of the property in question. As a consequence of it, the claim was dismissed which has been impugned by way of preferring this appeal.

Mr. Pali, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/State submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their ownership with regard to the land in question is apparently contrary to law. It is contended further that the trial Court without considering the documentary evidence led by the parties in its proper perspective has erred in dismissing the claim.

On the other hand, Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and decree as passed by the trial Court.

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully.

The main question which arises for determination in this appeal is as to:-

“Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared the owner of the land in question described in Plaint Schedule ‘A’ based upon the order dated 06.08.1952 and 08.08.1952 alleged to have been passed in Land Acquisition Case No.11/16-5/1950-51?”

From perusal of the record, it appears that the plaintiffs’ entire case is based upon the orders passed in the land acquisition proceedings on 06.08.1952 and 08.08.1952, but, the plaintiffs have failed to produce the same on record in order to substantiate the said fact. In absence thereof, it is difficult to hold that the plaintiffs have acquired any interest whatsoever over the land in question based upon it. It is true that the revenue papers are found to be mutated in their names upto the year 1990, but, mere entries in revenue papers by itself would not be sufficient to hold that the plaintiffs have acquired their interest over the land in question unless and until the cogent and reliable evidence is produced in this regard, which the plaintiffs have completely failed to produce the same on record.

Besides, a suit, being Civil Suit No.14-A/1988, was instituted by the legal representatives of deceased Chunni Lal Mehta claiming declaration of title with regard to the land in question on the ground that neither the alleged land was acquired nor the compensation was paid and the claim so made was decreed by the concerned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 23.03.1989 (Ex.P-5/ Ex.D-9) as the State has failed to produce any document in relation to the said acquisition proceedings and by efflux of time, it has attained its finality.

In view of the aforesaid background, we do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim so as to call for any interference in this appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.

No order as to cost(s).

A decree be drawn accordingly.