High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
-1- Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2025:CGHC:15213 HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR WP227 No. 283 of 2025 Mukha Devi W/o Rajendra Singh Aged About 77 Years R/o Behind Hindu Milan Mandir, Hemu Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.), (Plaintiff). ... Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
versus 1- Smt. Kalpana Singh W/o Arun Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o House of Ram Kumar Chandra, Balaji Green City, Mopka, Quarter No.-15, Gulab Nagar, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.)(Defendants). 2- Arun Singh Aged About 37 Years Presently R/o Balaji Green City, Mopka, Quarter No.-15, Gulab Nagar, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.). 3- State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.). 4- Sarkari Karmachari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Maryadit Mopka, Through President, Registration No.-3157, Registered Address - Mopka, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur ... Respondent(s) (C.G.). (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner : For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.04.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to -2- call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and set-aside the impugned order passed by II Addl. Judge to the Court of Ist Civil Judge Jr. Division, Bilaspur/ Learned trial court in Civil Suit No. (A)/272/2022-on dated 16.12.2024, in the interest of justice. 10.3) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned IInd Additional Civil Judge to the learned Ist Civil Judge Junior Division Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 272A/2022, whereby the application moved by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC) seeking appointment of a Commissioner for demarcation of the suit land has been rejected. 3) Facts of the present case are as under:- A. The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking declaration of title, permanent injunction, and possession over Survey No. 993/1 N/21, admeasuring 240 sq. ft., situated at Village Mopka, Patwari Circle No. 29, Tehsil and District Bilaspur. B. It is pleaded that Plot No. 42 belongs to the petitioner, whereas Plot No. 43 admeasuring 240 sq. ft. belongs to her husband. Both plots are in their possession. C. The petitioner claims to have purchased the suit plot through a registered sale deed dated 17.01.2001 from Sarkari Karmachari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Maryadit, Bilaspur. It is pleaded that in -3- January 2022, when the plaintiff visited her plot, she found that defendants No. 1 & 2 had demolished the boundary wall of her plot. Thereafter, an application under Section 250 of the CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 was moved before the Tehsildar, who passed a stay order on 29.01.2020 against defendants No.1 & 2. D. The petitioner further claims that defendants No. 1 & 2 subsequently started raising construction on the suit property. The Tehsildar issued a direction for the demarcation of the land in proceedings of 250 of the Code, 1959. The revenue authorities submitted the demarcation report before the Tehsildar and the application moved by the petitioner under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 was dismissed. E. The petitioner moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC in pending civil suit for the appointment of a Commissioner for the demarcation of the suit property. F. The defendants opposed the application contending that the plaintiff’s application under Section 250 of the CGLRC was rejected by the Tehsildar. They submitted that the demarcation had already been conducted by the Revenue Inspector pursuant to the order passed by the Tehsildar in Revenue Case No. 202101072500271/अ-70/2020-21, dated 20.02.2020, and the report was submitted before the Tehsildar, who rejected the plaintiff’s application under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 vide order dated 26.05.2022. G. The trial court, after considering the fact that earlier, the demarcation had already been conducted by the revenue authorities and that the plaintiff’s case under Section 250 of the CGLRC was dismissed based on the demarcation report, rejected the application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC. -4- 4) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the suit property was purchased through a registered sale deed and a possession certificate was issued in favor of the petitioner on 29.08.2012. He argues that defendants No. 1 & 2 have encroached over part of the suit property. It is submitted that according to the demarcation report Survey No. 993/1 N/21, admeasuring 240 sq. ft. belongs to the petitioner. He submitted that for a just and fair decision of the case, the appointment of a Commissioner for demarcation is necessary. He contends that the trial court rejected the application on flimsy grounds. He prays to set aside the impugned order. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6) The documents placed on the record would show that the petitioner purchased Survey No. 993/1 N/21, admeasuring 240 sq. ft. through a registered sale deed dated 17.01.2001 from Sarkari Karmachari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Maryadit. Plot No. 42 belongs to the petitioner and Plot No. 43 belongs to her husband. It is stated that defendants No. 1 & 2 have unlawfully started construction on part of the suit property. 7) The documents reveal that the petitioner had earlier moved an application under Section 250 of the CGLRC before the Tehsildar, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.05.2022. The petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 26.05.2022 and the demarcation report before any forum, thus the order passed by the Tehsildar and the demarcation report attained finality. 8) Subsequently, the petitioner filed a civil suit and moved an application under -5- Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC for the appointment of a Commissioner, wherein the petitioner pleaded that the appointment of the Commissioner is necessary for a just decision in the case. 9) Since the demarcation was conducted by the revenue authorities and the report was also submitted before the Tehsildar, in the opinion of this Court, there is no necessity for the appointment of a Commissioner for the demarcation again. 10)However, the petitioner would be at liberty to place the demarcation report before the learned trial court for consideration.
Decision
11)In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial court, accordingly, the instant writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM