@ HIGH coun'r or camwlsw >~ AT 3wrun ‘ Second Ameal No.108 of 2005 Angellants : (1) Rq Kama! Shinghaniya, (Plainljjl‘s) S/ o Late Shri Jiwanlal Shinghaniya, aged about 53 years (2) Smt. Manju Devi Shinglnniya; W/o Shri Rajkamal Shinghaniya, aged about 45 years (3) Mahésh Agawal, S/o Late Shri Radhcshyam Awal, aged about 35 years (2) Additional Tahslldar Raipnr Competent O$cer Tahsildar O$ce of’l‘ahsildar Raipur (C.G.) Mr. Gautam Bhaduri, counsel for the appellants. Mr. J.D.Bajpai, Government Advocate for the respondents] State. JUDGMENT (Delivered on 29th Ayn, 20051 Per Vija! Rum” Shrimtag J. This is a second appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 541-2004 passed by XIVth Additional Disnict Judge, Fast Track Court, Raipur dismissing Civil Appeal No.1‘ A/ 2004. p t J t / [All R] o Civil Linc, Raipur Resgonden ‘ : (1) state of Chhattmh Collector Raipur, (Defendants) Through OEce Ama Raipur (C.G.) District Q2? 2. The appellants/pIaintiEs had flled a civil suit for damages and permanent injunction again st the respondents/defendants on the averment that the appellant Nos.1 and 2 were in possession of the land measuring 0.195 hectares While the appellant No.3 was in possession of the land measuring 0.04 hectares of Khasra No.331 at Village Puraina. The said land at Village Puraina is Government land and situated adjacent to the land of the appellants/plaintids, therefore, they applied for allotment of the same in their favour, and their applican'on was lying pending before the revenue authorities for consideration. The appellants had developed the suit land by implanting various fruit bearing trees and made the area green. All of a sudden, on 16-6- 2001, the respondents issued a notice for removing the possession, and Without ah‘ording any opportunity, partially demolished the structure and caused damage to the fencing of the said land. 3. that, the appellants/plaintiffs had encroached upon the Government land and they have been removed from the said encroachment on 16-6-2001, and after having dispossessed, the appellants/plaintiffs have filed the civil suit on 18—6-2001 for perpetual injunction and damage, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of any relief. The respondents/defendants, in their reply, submitted x 4. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence on record, held that, the appellants] plaintiii's have been dispossessed hem the suit land on 16—6-2001, and they failed to prove the damage. Therefore, Vide judgment and decree dated 21-12-2001, 3 learned lVth Civil Judge Class‘l, Raipur dismissed the Civil Suit No.350-A/ 2001 med by the appellants] plaintm‘s. Aggrieved by that judgnent and decme, Vthe appellants]plain1iEs $611 a Civil Appeal bearing No.1-A/2004 in the Court of. XlVth Additional District Judge, Fast Track Comt, Raipur, who, vide judgment and deuce dated 5-11-2004, Med the dnding arrived at by leamed trial court and dismissed the civil appeal. 5. According to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, second appeal lies to the High Court if the High Court is satisded that, the case involves a Substantial question of law. Thei‘efore, learned counsel for the appellants advanced arguments to show that, the case involves a substantial quesu'on of law, and contended that, learned Courts below have drawn a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act to hold that, the appellants] plaintih‘s have been dispossessed under a valid and legal proceeding, and also contended that, the revenue authorities have not followed the rule of natural justice. 6. From perusal of the record, it is evident that, the appellants] plaintih‘s, to support their case, have examined only one of the plaintih‘s Shri Raj Kamal Shinghaniya, who, in his deposition, has admitted that, on 16‘6—2001, the fencing had been damaged and the structure, built for residence of Chowkidar, had been destroyed by the omqials of the respondent No.1. To prove removal of encroachment, the respondents have produced the concerned Patwari in‘ evidence. The concerned Patwari Shri Dinesh Kumar Shanna, DW-l very speciiically stated that, he removed the encroachment of the land bearing Khasra No.33 1,] lge/asuring area 3} 4 0.587 hectams and submitted his mport which is Ex.D—1, In this way, fmm the evidence adduced by the respondents, which fmds corroboration from the evidence of the appellants/p1aintift‘s themselves, it was proved that, the appellants/plaintiifs had been dispossessed from the suit land on 16-6-2001 by the revenue authorities. 7. Learned trial Court'has drawn presumption on the basis of EXP-12, a notice dated 4—6-2001 issued by Additional Tahsildar, Raipur against the appellant No,1, Raj Kamal Shinghaniya regaiding encroachment and fine, that the revenue authorities have passed the order after following the prescribed procedure, because contrary to it has not been proved by the appellants] plaintiEs. Section 114 of the Evidence Act provides to draw presumption that, judicial and ohicial acts are regularly performed and learned trial Court, as contraiy to it has not been brought on record, has drawn presumption regarding the encroachment proceeding to have been conducted in accordance with law. / 8. The lis brought in Civil Court is not regarding the illegality or irregularity committed by revenue authorities in their proceeding, but it was a case for perpetual injunction based on possession. When both the Courts below have come to a conclusion that, the encroachment of the appellants/plaintih‘s had been t removed on 16-6-2001, and h‘om the record, it is apparent that, the plaint had‘been tiled for grant of perpetual injunction on 18‘6—2001, apparently nothing remains in the suit. Admittedly, the land belongs to the Government and the appellangjplainu'd‘s were @ 5 encroachers, therefore, the Governmsnt was entit1€d to remove the encroachment and take possession of the suit 1a11d, which they did. 9. In my opinion, the contentions, raised by learned counsel for the appellants, have no force, and no substantial question of law is involved in this case. 10. The second appeal hled by the appellants/plaintin‘s deserves to be dismissed and is aocordingly dismissed. Ad <J7L, ,, Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge G. Singh