Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.07.23 15:24:15 +0530 2025:CGHC:34005 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP(227) No. 662 of 2025 * - Sapan Saha S/o Late Madhu Saha, Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Tongpal, Tehsil Tongpal, District Sukma (C.G.) Versus ... Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector, District Sukma (C.G.) 2 - The Tehsildar Tongpal, Tehsil Tongpal, District Sukma (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner For Respondents : :
Legal Reasoning
8. The prima facie case does not appear in favour of the petitioner, and as the petitioner has raised the construction over the government land without the authority of law, the balance of convenience is also not in his favour. Only on the basis of the irreparable injury, the order of temporary injunction cannot be granted. 9. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Courts below. 10. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti
Arguments
Mr. Rahul Jha, Advocate Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18/07/2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.05.2025 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 02/2024 by the learned 1st District Judge, District South Bastar, Dantewada, whereby a Miscellaneous Appeal preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC has been dismissed and the order passed in Civil Suit No. 2A/2024 dated 29.11.2024 whereby the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was rejected, has been affirmed. 2. The petitioner instituted a civil suit seeking the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants. It is pleaded that the petitioner has perfected his right over the suit property 2 on the basis of adverse possession, which is government land, bearing Survey No. 87/2 admeasuring 0.02 hectare (5 decimal), situated at Village Tongpal, Tehsil Tongpal, District Sukma. An application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was also filed. 3. The learned trial Court vide order dated 29.11.2024 rejected the application for temporary injunction. The petitioner preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal against the said order, and it has also been dismissed vide order dated 08.05.2025. 4. Mr. Rahul Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff, would submit that the petitioner has been in possession of the suit property since 1989, and he is residing there along with his family. He would further submit that he had constructed a mud house over the subject property. He would contend that, looking to the uninterrupted possession of over 25 years, the government settled the subject property in favour of the petitioner in Revenue Case No. 04/A-66/2014- 15. He would further argue that the petitioner had paid the premium of Rs.80/- through a challan along with other persons. He would contend that the condition of the mud house was not good; therefore, the petitioner started raising the construction of a permanent structure, and 80% work was completed in the month of May, 2024, but respondent No. 2 vide order dated 13.05.2024 restrained the petitioner from raising further construction. He would also submit that the application for revocation of stay order was not considered by respondent No. 2 and therefore, a legal notice was issued to respondent No. 2 on 24.06.2024. He would also contend that respondent No. 2 initiated proceedings under Section 248 of the CG Land Revenue Code, 1959. He would further contend that thereafter, the petitioner filed a civil suit. 3 It is also argued that the learned courts below have not considered the order issued by the court of Tehsildar Chindgarh, District Sukma, whereby Bhoomiswami right was granted to the petitioner. He would also submit that the petitioner deposited the premium amount of Rs.80/-. It is contended that the Bhoomiswami right was granted in favour of the petitioner and 06 other persons. He would state that the petitioner has no other accommodation, and he has already completed 80% of the construction work. He would further state that the 03 ingredients of a temporary injunction, viz. A prima facie case, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury are in favour of the petitioner, even though the courts below have rejected the application for a temporary injunction. He would pray to allow this petition. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents, would oppose. He would submit that in the written statement, the respondents have denied the plaint averments. He would further submit that the suit property has been earmarked for a bus stand, and the settlement order annexed as Annexure- P/2 is a forged document. He would contend that Revenue Case No. 04/A-66/2014-15 was registered in the name of one Shiv Kumar. He would also submit that even the date of the order is not mentioned in Annexure P/2. He would further contend that the learned courts below, considering the material available on the record, rejected the application moved by the petitioner for a temporary injunction. He would also contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner has claimed the right over the suit property on 4 the basis of Bhoomiswami rights granted over part of Surveny No. 87 admeasuring 0.02 hectare (5 decimal). In the order Annexure- P/2, the date is not mentioned. The petitioner had deposited the premium amount of Rs.80/- through a challan, but a mere deposit of Rs.80/- would not confer any right in favour of the petitioner. It is stated in the written statement that Revenue Case No. 04/A-66/2014-15 has not been registered in the name of the petitioner, rather it is registered in the name of one Shiv Kumar. Thus, the authenticity and validity of the order Annexure- P/2 are doubtful. It appears that a proceeding under Section 248 of the CG. Land Revenue Code, 1959, was initiated against the petitioner, and according to the provisions of Section 257 of the Code, 1959, the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred. The subject land is reserved for a bus-stand.