Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh v. 1. Pushpa Devi Sharma W/o Om Prakash Tiwari Aged About 60 Years R/o Gandhi
Case Details
1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.04 16:52:10 +0530 2025:CGHC:38170 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 498 of 2025 Roshan Lal Hablani S/o Late Maghan Das Hablani Aged About 67 Years R/o Sant Kanwar Ram Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Pushpa Devi Sharma W/o Om Prakash Tiwari Aged About 60 Years R/o Gandhi Mandir Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2. Om Prakash Tiwari S/o Jamuna Lal Tiwari Aged About 65 Years R/o Gandhi Mandir Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3. Lakhan Lal S/o Kejuram Lohar Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Hathani(Bhatapara), Tehsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Judgement Debtors/ Defendants) 4. Ishwari Bai W/o Lakhanpal Lohar Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Hathani(Bhatapara), Tehsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
5. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Original Defendant No. 2 Before The Trial Court.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondents No. 1 & 2/ decree holder For State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01. 08.2025 2 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 This this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 23/7/2019 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Execution Court and may kindly be quash the entire proceedings of the execution court bearing Execution Case No. 21/2003 in the interest of justice. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the court below, for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioners in the interest of justice..” 2. Respondents No. 1 & 2 had instituted Civil Suit No. 21A/2003 on 20.08.2003 for the specific performance of the contract pertaining to land bearing survey No. 385/1 admeasuring 0.368 hectares situated at Village Pathani, Patwari Circle No. 6, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara against the original defendant, namely Smt. Mati Bai. Smt. Mati Bai died during the pendency of the first appeal, and her legal representatives were brought on record. 3. The learned Trial Court partly decreed Civil Suit No. 21A/2003 vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2004. The learned trial Court held that though the area of the suit property was 0.368 hectares, on the spot, only 0.238 hectares of land is available, and thus, directed the legal representatives of Late Mati Bai for the execution of the sale-deed in respect of survey No. 385/1 area 0.238 hectares. The defendants of the Civil Suit preferred a first appeal before the High Court, and it was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.03.2019. 4. The decree holders moved an application for execution. The sale-deed pertaining to survey No. 385/1 admeasuring 0.368 hectare was executed in their favour pursuant to the order dated 23.07.2019 on 26.7.2019 3 5. The petitioner is the owner of land bearing survey No. 385/2, admeasuring 0.065 hectare, and it is adjacent to the suit property. The decree holders moved an application for correction of the map before the concerned Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) on the ground that the sale-deed has been executed in respect of survey No. 385/1, area 0.368 hectare, but in the revenue map, the entire area has not been shown. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) called for a report from the concerned Tahsildar. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) rejected the application moved by respondents No. 1 & 2 on the ground that in the year 1988, the map of the suit property was revised. 6. Respondents No. 1 & 2 preferred an appeal before the Collector, and it was dismissed vide order dated 09.01.2023. Respondents No. 1 & 2 preferred a second appeal before the Commissioner, and vide order dated 16.04.2025, the matter has been remitted back to the Collector for fresh adjudication. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had purchased survey No. 385/2 admeasuring 0.065 hectare through a registered sale-deed dated 27.07.2007 from one Lata Devi Tatiya, which is adjacent to the suit property. He would further submit that the petitioner is in possession of 0.065 hectare by virtue of the sale-deed. He would also submit that respondents No. 1 & 2 are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner. He would contend that though the petitioner was not a party to the suit, but the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the High Court would show that sale- deed was to be executed with respect to area 0.238 hectare, but the learned Executing Court issued a direction to execute the sale-deed pertaining to area 0.368 hectare, whereas, on the spot, only 0.238 hectare of land is available and that was the reason the Learned Civil Court granted 4 the decree of specific performance of contract pertaining to 0.238 hectares only. He would further contend that respondents No. 1 & 2/decree holders have no authority under the law to outreach the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. He would pray to allow the present petition. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2, would oppose. He would submit that if the petitioner’s right is being disturbed, he should institute a Civil Suit. He would further submit that the order of the Commissioner dated 16.04.2025 is revisable before the Board of Revenue, and therefore, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. He would also submit that as the sale-deed has already been executed in their favour, the decree has been satisfied. He would contend that on the application moved by respondents No. 1 & 2 for correction of the map, an inspection was conducted and a report was submitted by the revenue officials on 06.06.2025, wherein it is clearly stated that the petitioner is in possession of 0.1294 hectare, whereas the actual area of 385/2 is 0.65 hectare. He would further contend that after the satisfaction of the decree, the proceedings of the Civil Suit came to an end, and for a new cause of action, the petitioner should approach the appropriate forum. He would also contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 10. The learned Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 21A/2003 passed the judgment and decree on 23.11.2004, and the relevant part of the decree is reproduced herein-below:- “/1/ यह कि(cid:4) ቇኋ(cid:6)म हथनी(cid:10) पटवा(cid:6)री(cid:10) हल्(cid:4)(cid:6) नी(cid:16). 6 री(cid:6)किनीम वा तहसी(cid:10)ल भा(cid:6)ट(cid:6)प(cid:6)री(cid:6) म(cid:21) 5 ቝኌ(cid:23)त भा(cid:24)मिम ख.नी. 385/1 री(cid:4)बा(cid:6) 0.368 ह(cid:28). (cid:4)(cid:6) किवा(cid:4)य प्ቔ ्ቚकितवा(cid:6)दि नी(cid:10) (cid:4) 1 ቦኍ(cid:10)मत(cid:10) मत(cid:10)बा(cid:6)ई वा(cid:6) # (cid:4) 1 ቦኍ(cid:10)मत(cid:10) प$ष्प(cid:6) (cid:28)वा(cid:10) (cid:4)(cid:28) ह(cid:4) म(cid:21) म&(cid:4)(cid:6) अनी$सी(cid:6)री जो) री(cid:4)बा(cid:6) 0.238 ह(cid:28). प(cid:6)य(cid:6) गय(cid:6) ह+ उसी(cid:4)- (cid:4)-मत ल(cid:28)(cid:4)री ) मह(cid:6) (cid:4)(cid:28) अ(cid:16) री रीजिजोस्ट# बा+नी(cid:6)म(cid:6) किनीष्प(cid:6)दि त (cid:4)री उसी(cid:28) (cid:4)ब्ज़ा(cid:6) सी&प (cid:28)वा(cid:28)। /2/ यदि ्ቚकितवा(cid:6) #नी (cid:4)म(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:4) 1 ቦኍ(cid:10)मत(cid:10) मत(cid:10)बा(cid:6)ई ቛኋ(cid:6)री(cid:6) उक्त आ (cid:28)श (cid:4)(cid:6) प(cid:6)लनी नीह(cid:10) कि(cid:4)य(cid:6) जो(cid:6)त(cid:6) ह+ त) वा(cid:6) #गण ቛኋ(cid:6)री(cid:6) रीजिजोस्ट# ख्ቊ9 जोम(cid:6) (cid:4)रीनी(cid:28) परी न्य(cid:6)य(cid:6)लय ्ቚकितवा(cid:6)दि नी(cid:10) (cid:4)म(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:4) 1 (cid:4)- ओरी सी(cid:28) किवा(cid:4)य प्ቔ तहरी(cid:10)री (cid:4)री वा(cid:6)दि नी(cid:10) (cid:4)म(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:4) 1 प$ष्प(cid:6) (cid:28)वा(cid:10) (cid:4)) ्ቚ (cid:6)नी तथ(cid:6) खसीनी(cid:6) नी(cid:16) 385/1 री(cid:4)बा(cid:6) 0.238 ह(cid:28). (cid:4)(cid:6) (cid:4)ब्जो(cid:6) भा(cid:10) वा(cid:6) #नी(cid:10) (cid:4)म(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:4) 1 ቦኍ(cid:10)मत(cid:10) प$ष्प(cid:6) (cid:28)वा(cid:10) (cid:4)) दि ल(cid:6)य(cid:28)ग(cid:10)। /3/ ्ቚकितवा(cid:6)दि नी(cid:10) (cid:4)म(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:4) 1 ቦኍ(cid:10)मत(cid:10) मत(cid:10)बा(cid:6)ई अपनी(cid:6) स्वाय(cid:16) (cid:4)(cid:6) तथ(cid:6) वा(cid:6) #गण एवा(cid:16) ्ቚकितवा(cid:6) # (cid:4)(cid:16) 2 (cid:4)(cid:6) भा(cid:10) वा(cid:6) ्ቤय वाहनी (cid:4)री(cid:21)।" 11. A bare reading of the decree passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the High Court in First Appeal No. 38 of 2005 would make it clear that out of 0.368 hectare, only 0.238 hectare of land was available on spot and direction was issued to the defendants to execute the sale-deed for 0.238 hectare of land after the receipt of consideration. Respondents No. 1 & 2 were held entitled to get possession of 0.238 hectare only. 12. Respondents No. 1 & 2 filed an execution case, and the decree was satisfied as the sale-deed was executed by the judgment debtor in favour of respondents No. 1 & 2 on 26.07.2019 pertaining to survey No. 385/1 area 0.368 hectare. After the execution of the sale deed, respondents No. 1 & 2 have made an attempt to obtain possession of the remaining 0.120 hectare of land. In the decree, it was clarified that respondents No. 1 & 2 shall obtain the possession of only 0.238 hectare of land; therefore, any attempt made by respondents No. 1 & 2 to obtain possession of more than 0.238 hectare would be beyond the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. 6 13. Though the learned Executing Court directed the judgment debtors to execute the sale-deed pertaining to survey No. 385/1 area 0.368 hectare, it would not confer any right in favour of respondents No. 1 & 2 to obtain possession of the adjacent land pursuant to the sale-deed executed in their favour. 14. Respondents No. 1 & 2 happily accepted the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the High Court, and both judgments were never challenged by respondents No. 1 & 2 before the higher courts, and thus, it attained finality and it shall be binding on respondents No. 1 & 2 as well as the defendants. 15. Respondents No. 1 & 2 are hereby restrained from initiating any revenue proceedings to obtain the possession of 0.120 hectare of land out of 0.368 hectare of survey No. 385/1, as the dispute has already been settled by the Civil Court. The revenue authorities are also directed not to initiate any proceedings pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 21A/2003 dated 23.11.2004 and affirmed by the High Court in First Appeal No. 38/2005.
Decision
16. Accordingly, this petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant