Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:14145 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.03.25 13:19:29 +0530 SA No. 415 of 2015 1 - Farsu Since Died Thorugh Lrs Radha Wd/o Late Farsu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Bade Alnar, Post And P.S. Sivni, Civil And Revenue District Bastar Chhattisgarh 2 - Sukman Ram S/o Late Farsu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Bade Alnar, Post And P.S. Sivni, Civil And Revenue District Bastar Chhattisgarh 3 - Balakram S/o Late Farsu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bade Alnar, Post And P.S. Sivni, Civil And Revenue District Bastar Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
... Appellants/Plaintiffs versus 1 - Masa S/o Jagnu Madiya Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Karli, Badam, Police Station And Post Badam, Civil And Revenue District Dantewada Chhattisgarh 2-Deleted Baju 3 - Raiyamati D/o Kullu Bhatra Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bada Alnar, Police Station And Post Bhanpuri, Civil And Revenue District Bastar Chhattisgarh 4 - Deleted Mrs. Balo 2 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bastar, Office Of District Collector, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 6 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Office Of District Collector, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Respondents/defendants For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate along with Mr. Sandeep Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Nidhi Tiwari appears on behalf of Mr. B.P. For State Sharma, Advocate : Mr. S.K. Puria, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 24/03/2025 1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2015 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.1A/2013, which, in turn, arose out of the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2012 passed by the 3rd Civil Judge, Class II, Jagdalpur in Civil Suit No.23-A/2009 while dismissing the Appeal, affirmed the order passed by the trial Court whereby, the Suit has been dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC as the Suit is barred under Section 257(l-1) of the CG Land Revenue Code. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that appellants/plaintiffs have filed a Suit for declaration, possession and injunction with an averment inter alia that in the year 1995-96 the subject property was purchased through one Masa, S/o Jagnu Madiya, for consideration of Rs.30,000/-. On the application filed by defendant No.3 (late Kullu S/o Dukhu Bhatra), SDO 3 (Revenue) Jagdalpur an enquiry proceeding under Section 170-B of the CG Land Revenue Code was initiated and the application for return of the land in favour of defendants No.2, 3 and 4 was allowed vide order dated 29.05.2001, so the suit has been filed for declaration of title and possession. In the said Civil Suit, an application has been preferred by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC, which was allowed vide order dated 29.09.2012 and the Suit was dismissed as barred by law under Section 257(l-1) of the CG Land Revenue Code and the same was affirmed by the 1st Appellate Court. Hence this Second Appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is well settled that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the averments in the plaint alone are to be examined and no other extraneous factor can be taken into consideration. He further submits that the trial Court has committed error and on the basis of the objection raised by the defendants beyond the pleadings made in the plaint, the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that they had not made party and the learned SDO has not complied with the principle of natural justice. He would further submit that as the plaintiffs had sought declaration of title and the same could not be declared by the Revenue Court, the same is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Court, therefore, the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable and places reliance in the matters of H.S. Deekshit And Another vs. Metropoli Overseas Limited And Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2024 and Foti Rakabchand Jain through LRs vs. Foti Ratanlal Jain through LRs, 2022 SCC OnLine MP 3438. He would further submit that as the 4 subject land has been purchased by a transaction between aboriginal to aboriginal, so provision of Section 170-A of the CG Land Revenue Code would not attract as the said provision specifically stipulates that when a transferer of agricultural land belonging to a tribe, which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe to a non aboriginal tribe, then only in such circumstances, the said provision applies. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of both the Courts below with utmost circumspection. 5. There is a concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the Suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred under Section 257(l-1) of the CG Land Revenue Code and for the sake of brevity the said provision read thus:- “257. Exclusive jurisdiction of revenue authorities.- Except as otherwise provided in this Code, or in any other enactment for the time being in force, no Civil Court shall entertain any suit instituted or application made to obtain a decision or order on any matter which the State Government, the Board, or any Revenue Officer is by this Code, empowered to determine, decide or dispose of, and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of this provision, no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matter:- xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (l-1) any matter covered under Section 170-B; xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx” 6. From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that ordinarily no Civil Court shall entertain any suit instituted or application made to 5 obtain a decision or order on any matter which the State Government, the Board, or any Revenue Officer is by the CG Land Revenue Code, empowered to determine, decide or dispose of any matter covered under Section 170-B, therefore, it is clear that ordinarily the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters and orders passed under Section 170-B of the CG Land Revenue Code or any matter covered thereunder would be barred. 7. In the present case, after holding an enquiry, the SDO (Revenue) has passed an order dated 29.05.2001 against the plaintiffs for return of the land in favour of the aboriginals (defendants No.2, 3 and 4) and during such enquiry, it has been found that there was no person in existence in the name of Masa S/o Jagnu Madiya, therefore, the transaction is not bonafide. 8. Admittedly, the order passed by the SDO (Revenue) has not been challenged under the CG Land Revenue Code and a civil suit has been filed. 9. In the matter of Dhulabhai vs. State of M.P., AIR 1969 SC 78, it has been categorically held that where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special Tribunals the Civil Courts’ jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the Civil Courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory Tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. 6 10.From a bare reading of the plaint, it appears that there is no such averment that the provisions of the Act have not been complied with or the statutory Tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of the facts that the appellants were also examined and they had also participated in the said enquiry and thereafter, an order has been passed. 11.For the forgoing discussion, this Court reiterated the principles in the matter of State of Rajasthan And Others vs. Shiv Dayal And Another, (2019) 8 SCC 637, that when any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in Second Appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded de hors the pleadings or based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against any provision of law and lastly, the decision is one which no judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached.
Decision
12.In view of the above settled legal proposition, I find absolutely no merit in this Appeal, involving any question of law much less any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the CPC. 13.In my view, the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below appear to be just, proper and legal. Both the Courts below have rightly allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC as the suit is barred by law and there is no illegality or perversity in the same and they do not call for any interference. 14.Resultantly, the Second Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the 7 motion stage itself. 15.A decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka