S.‘ A. N0. RAMKUMAR 3/0 BAHORAN. AGED 45 YEARS g RAMRATAN s/¢ BAHORAN, AGED 38 mas K sHIVRATAN s/o BAHORAN, AGED 23 ymks sM'r. Truman W/o moms, Assn 53‘7 gens mamas; msm S/o mum. AGED 55 yaks, i HISHAL PRASAD S/O ’RAMLAL AGE 5O YEA mas. vxsr-nw msm s/o RAMLAL AGED Q8 mks. ‘ PAmEsHWER S/o RAMLAL AGED 43 YEARS man KUMAR s/o‘RAMLAL AGED 35 yearsi u j , smr. man w/QGRAMLAL AGED 73 mas BAISRAM 8/0 BODHANRAM, Aw 63 YEARS‘ BHAWAIDEEN S/O WAYAL, AGED 57 YEARS, ‘ BHAGWMI msm s/o RAMDAYAL A s7; YEARS. GANGARAM s/o RAMDAYAL AGED 53 Haas WESHWAR PRA$AD S/O WAYAL AGw 53 YEARS, an. cos'r or KURMI. AND m R/o VILLAGE - NGWSA. masn. a: DISTRICT BILASPDR (c.G.) ‘ " VERSUS a 2 {1b REsmmENTS EFENBEMS STATE OF Ci-IHATTIS&RH, mROUGi counc'roa Bxmsma (c;G.) “J Vb C???” wk m TH: HIGI COURT or JUDIGATDRE A? BxmsHm CHHATTISGARH ?‘L\ 22004 ¥ J x g ; APPsmAM‘s : - 1'. pLAIN'rIFFs { I. 2 ‘ 3" 4. u . 5o . 5. .-‘ i . 7 o f 0%0 y. @fxsé’gi" ~39 'gxx{‘~® 9 V‘a‘ gg‘ g” - Qx gycx a ." ‘ 1w. N @b € ‘ b‘ 11'. ' V ‘{ x V e x§3x /: v12. .V Second Aggeal No.72 of 2004 Ramkumar and others Vel'SUS a State of Chhattisgarh and another ORDER Post for 0 9-02-201 0 SW- Prash‘ant Kumar Mishra Juf'g , HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra é , \\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTisGARH AT BILASPUR Hn a ra o nt Kumal; Mish 5 Single Bench: ’ble Shri Justice Prash Second Aggal No.72 of 2004 Present counsel Shri shree for the Kumar appellants. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Vikram Dixit, Ms. Sange‘eta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1 . Second Aggeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure OR ER (Passed ono?“ February, 201 0) The plaintiffs/appellants herein have challenged the dismissal of their suit by both the Courts below, which have dismissed their suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 2. .The suit (Civil Suit No.98—Al2002) preferred by the plaintiffs was in relation to three tanks bearing Khasra No.3130 area 1.92 acres, No.3128 area 0.67 acre and No.3129 area 1.20 acres, total area 3.79 acres. According to the plaintiffs, the suit tanks belonged to their ancestors and they are the owners thereof and since the time of their forefathers and even after coming into force the Chhattisgarh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estate‘s, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 { l however, at the time of issuance of record of rights, the suit tanks were t (henceforth ‘the Act, l950‘), they are continuing to hold the suit tanks, ; not included and upon obtaining the copies of the revenue records, A?Qgellénts Ramkumar and others ‘1 versus Respondgnte State of Chhattisgarh and . w they became aware that their names have been deleted from the revenue records. Their prayer for mutation of their names was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 17—1 2—1 980. 3.§ On appeal before the Additional Collector, the matter was remanded, however, the Sub—Divisional Officer again passed an order on 20-6-1986 declining to enter the plaintiffs’ names in the suit tanks. Further appeal before the Additional Collector was rejected and second appé‘al before the Additional Commissioner was also rejected on 6-6- 2000. The Sub-Divisional Officer, thereafter, ordered on 30-3-2000 inviting applications for grant of fishing rights to the cooperative societies on the suit tanks. The plaintiffs were thus compelled to file the present suit. 4. The respondentsfdefendants in their written statement stated that the suit tanks have been vested in the Government in revenue case No.996/A64/65 and that the entry in the revenue records to the effect that the subject-tanks belong to the State is not a clerical error and the villagers are exercising their nistan' rights on the said tanks. 5. The teamed trial Court, in answer to issue No.1, has recorded the nnding that the plaintiffs have not submitted any proof of their possession on the suit tanks and that in the Nistar Patrak it is recorded that the villagers are exercising their nistan' rights on the suit tanks. lt has also been observed'that the plaintiffs have not submitted any i document after 1960 to prove theirpossession or title over the suit l j tanks. in the absence of revenue records after 1960, the learned trial Court concluded that the plaintiffs have failed to prove/their case. lt l l l l r was further observed by the trial Court‘that the plaintiffs have made repeated efforts after 1980 to get their names recorded in the revenue records but they failed. 6.? The appellate Court has also amrmed the findings recorded by the trial Court by observing that the suit tanks have vested in the Government under Section 251 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (henceforth 'the Code. 1959') and the plaintiffs have failed prove that such vesting by operation of law is not applicable in the pesent case. It has also been observed that the plaintiffs have failed r to produce record of case No.848/A64/58-59 order dated 30-6-1960 mentioned in Nistar Patrak Ex.P-8 and thus the order passed by the trial Court does not call for any interference. 7. On examination of the plaint, it would appear that the plaintiffs hve claimed title over the suit tanks on the ground that their fefathers were Ex.-Malgujar of the village and the suit tanks belonged t their Malgujari (Proprietary Rights). ln the light of said averments in the plaint, Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, 1950 need to‘be referred, which are as under: “5.3: Vesting of proprietary rights in the State. (1) Save as othen/vise provided in this Act, on and from a date to be specified by a notification by the State Government in this behalf, all proprietary rights in an estate, mahal, alienated village or alienated land, as the case may be, in the area l l l, specified in the notification, vesting in a proprietary of such estate, mahal, alienated village, alienated land, or in a person having interest in such proprietary right through the i Tproprietor, shall pass from such proprietor or such other to a or o L l n4 y person to and vest in the State for the purposes of the State free of an encumbrances. (2) After the issue of a notification under sub-section (1), no right shail be acquired in or over the iand to which the i said notification relates, except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf of the State; and no fresh clearings for cultivation or for any other purpose shall be made in such land except in accordance with such rules as may be made by the State ”Government in this behalf. (3 Different dates may be specified under sub—section (1) for different areas. (4) The State Government may vary the date specified under sub—section (1) at any time before such date. 3.4: Consequences of the vesting. (1) When the notification under section 3 in respect of any area has been published in the Gazette, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract, grant or document ortin any other law for the time being in force and save as otherwise provided in this Act, the consequences as hereinafter set forth shall, from the beginning of the date specified in such notification (hereinafter referred to as the date of vesting) ensue, namely— (a) all rights, title and interest vesting in the proprietor or any person having interest in such proprietary right through the proprietor in such area including land (cultivable or barren), grass land; scrub jungle, forest, trees, fisheries, wells, tanks, ponds, water channels, ferries, pathways, village Sites, heats, bazars and melas; and in all sub-soil, including rights, if any, in mines and minerals, whether being worked or not, shall cease and be vested in the State for purposes of the State free of all encumbrances; and the ) , i t ; l mortgage debt or charge on any proprietary rights shall be a charge on the amount of compensation payable for such proprietary right to the proprietor under the provisions of this Act; all grants and conhrmation of title of or to land in the property so vesting or of or to any right or privilege in respect of such property or land revenue in respect thereof shall, whether liable to resumption or not, determine; all rents and cesses, in respect of any holding in the property so vesting for any period after the date of vesting, and which, but for such vesting, would be payable to the proprietor, shall vest in and be payable to the State Government, and any payment made in contravention of this clause shall not be a valid discharge of the person liable to pay the same; all arrears of rev'enue, cesses or other dues, in respect of any property so vesting, and due by the proprietor for any period to the date of vesting, shall continue to be recoverable from such proprietor and may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery. be realized by deducting the amount from the compensation money payable to such proprietor under Chapter V; the interest of the proprietor so acquired shall not be liable to attachment or sale in execution (b) t“i (C) (d) l of anydecree or other process of any court, civil l l or revenue, and any attachment existing at the t date bf vesting or'any order for attachment i before such date shall, subject to the provisions i of section 73 of the Transfer of Property Act, i 1882 (V of 1882), cease to be in force. l (f) every mortgage with possession existing on the property so vesting or part thereof on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting shall, to the extent of the amount secured on such property or part, be deemed, without prejudice to the rights of the State Government under section 3, to have been substituted by a simple mortgage. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub—section (1), the proprietor shall continue to retain the possession of his home-stead, home-farm land, and in the Central Provinces also of land brought under cultivation by him after the agricultural year 1948-49 but before the date of vesting. (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall operate as a bar to the recovery by the outgoing proprietor of any sum which becomes due to him before the date of vesting by virtue of his proprietary rights and any such sum shall be recoverable by him by anyuprocess of law which but for this Act would be available to him.” a e 8. Now examining the evidence dealt with by the Courts below and submitted by the plaintiffs, it can be safely concluded that the plaintiffs have failed to plead or prove that the suit tanks belonged to their ancestors, i.e., the Malgujars and were exempted from vesting. ln this View of the matter, the learned Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit. 9. Having perused the record, this Court hnds that the burden to prove the title lay upon the plaintiffs to produce all relevant documents l k including the orders passed by the competent authority under the Act, l 1950 and under Section 251 of the Code, 1959, wherein and whereby l l t l i m—v.f..m' ' ** ‘ 1 the property was exempted from vesting or was settled in favour of their forefathers. Since the plaintiffs have failed to produce relevant revenue records in proof of their title, whereas it was their OWn case in paragraphs 5 to 9 of the plaint that their names were deleted from the revenue records and their application, appeal and revisions for entry of their names in revenue records have been concurrently dismissed by all the revenue authorities, the dismissal of their suit by the Courts belowgoes net cell for anv interference in this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. in View of the fact that no substantial question of law is arising for determination in this appeal, the second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.