)..,’ ,. “LE“...X w w,‘E. 4.“. ‘r vm (Wk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR p (CHHATTISGARH) single Mach SECOND APPEAL No. Li OH /2003. APPELLANTS: v:.l".(a) Smt. Chhayarani Chakrawarti PLAINTIFFS v" W/o late Gopalchand Chakrawarti aged about 70 years (b) Smt. Manima Rai 5, f W/o Shri RM. Rai aged about 52 years R/o Raipur. (c) Shri Manish Chakrawarti S/o late Gopalchand Chakrawarli aged about 49 years R/o Raipur Q(b,;r§‘ Qx$ (d) Preeteesh S/o late Gopalchand Chakrawarti Chakrawarti e; \w' aged abbut 48 years 5:. Ambikapur. (e) Pradeep Chakrawarti, S/o late Gopalchand Chakrawarti ‘y aged about 47 years R/o Raipur. (f) Smt. Roopa Chakrawarti D/o late Gopalehand Chakrawam' aged about 36 years R/o Raipur. 2. Smt. Niroopama Chalcrawarti Wd/o Jagdish Chandra Aged about 74 years. "‘\ l\lB)l s / *‘M ’ a @ V\i** afLQ? \ APPELLANTS : l f4 4L§X® Defendants .Ujjal Chakrawarti age 3? C, 0 . d years . 2. Amit Chakrawarti age 29 years. (_ Both sons of late Manoranjan Chakrawarti ) 3. Ku. Jaya Chakrawarti d/o Late Manoranjan Chakrawarti age 26 years. ( All residents of 9 Taltalla avenue S.N. Benalji road Kolkata -13 West — Bengal . ) 2mm». x APPELLANTS/: (Piaintifrs) 1(a) (b) (o) (d) r (e) (f) 3(1) (2) (3) Smt. Chhayarani Chakrawarti W/o late Gopalchand Chakrawarti aged about 7O years Smt. Manima Rai W/o Shri bM. Rai aged about 52 years R/o Raipur. Shri Manish Chakrawarti S/o late Gopalchand Chakrawarti aged about 49 years R/o Raipur Preeteesh Chakrawarti S/o late Gopalchand Chakrawarti aged about 48 years Ambikapur. Pradeep Chakrawarti, S/o late Gopalchand Chakrawarti aged about 47 years R/o Raipur. Smt. Roopa Chakrawarti D/o late Gopalchand Chakrawarti aged about 36 years R/o Raipur. Smt. Niroopama Chakrawarti Wd/o Jagdish Chandra aged about 74 years. (Died) Tanima Chakrawarti (Died and deleted) Ujjal Chakrawarti age 32 years. Amit Chakrawarti age 29 years. (Both sons of late Manoranjan Chakrawarti) Ku. Jaya Chakrawarti d/o Late Manoranjan Chakrawarti age 26 years. (All residents of 9 Taltalla avenue S.N. Benarji Road Kolkata — 13 West Bengal) Tapan Kumar Chakrawarti S/o Jagdish Chandra aged about- 46 years. Sapan Kumar Chakrawarti S/o Jagdish Chandra aged about 55 years. Deepan Kumar Chakrawarti S/o Jagdish Chandra aged about 52 years. ‘x / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR \AV / Second Agpeal No.491 of 2003 \\X \ u ‘ {Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code} Present: Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumit Verma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Sushil Dubey, Goernment Advocate for the State/respondent No.1. ’ OmJiN (16-12-201 1) 1. B this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellants hve challenged legality and propriety of the judgment & decree of dismisal of appeal, dated 31-7—2003 passed by the 4th Additinal District Jdge, Ambikapur, in Civil Appeal No.23A/2002, affirming the judgment & y a s o u decree dated 18—9-97 passed by the 3rd Civil Judge Class—ll, Ambikapur, in Civil Suit No.72A/86, whereby suit for declaration and possession filed on behalf of the appellants herein relating to Nazul Land Khasra No.4185/1 area 1.26 acres, has been dismissed. 2. i have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused judgments & decrees and records of both the Courts below. . As per claim of the appellants herein, the land in dispute bearing Khasra No.4185/1 area 1.26 acres was allotted to Dr. Jagdish Chandra Chakravarti ~— predecessor—in-tile of the appellants, by the State of Sarguja vide order dated 20-12—47. The land was given to the v L > W v Single Bench: Honble Mr. TP Sharma, J / 2 b6 / 7. Smt. Poornima Chakrawarti D/o Jagdish Chandra aged about 32 years. 8. Udayan Kumar Chakrawarti S/o Jagdish Chandra aged about 30 years. Appellants 2 to 8 R/o ambikapur Mohalla Sadar Road, Ambikapur Distt. Sarguja. 1 Versus RESéONDENTS/: 1. State of Madhya Pradesh Now State (Defendants) of Chhattisgarh Through Collector ‘ Sarguja Ambikapur 2. Ramanuj >Club, Ambikapur Distt. Sarguja. @9 respondents on license for construction of a club for recreation of Government officers. When possession is demanded by the appellants, the Government refused to same, thereafter, suit for declaration and possession was tiled on behalf of the appellants. By filing written statement, the respondents have specifically denied the allegation made in the plaint and pleaded that just few days before the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, the appellants herein succeeded in getting such lease ,of land which was cancelled by the Government vide Ex.D—4, the order ‘dated 24—7-50. The property belongs to the Government and the Government is in possession prior to 1950 as owner of the property. The plaintiffs are not entitled for declaration of ownership and possession, even otherwise, possession of the respondents is adverse. After providing‘opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Courts below have dismissed the suit and appeal. . Learned Senior Advocate for the appellants vehemently argued that the land was allotted as Rayyati Khatiyan under Maurushi right to Dr. Jagdish Chandra Chakravarti, therefore, it was not possible for the Government to cancel such document. By Ex.D-4, possession of the respondents is not permissive and, therefore, by dismissing the suit on the ground of adverse possession in absence of any title, the Court below has committed illegality. Ex.P-2 reveals that the land was allotted to Dr. Jagdish Chandra Chakravarti as Rayyati Khatiyan as Maurushi Krishak occupancy tenant. Ex.D-4 reveals that the lease has been demanded by the Government vide order dated 24.07.1950, though the respondents have not proved the fact that it was communicated to the appellants or opportunity of hearing has been provided to them. . On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the appeal. . As per undisputed facts, the respondents herein are in possession over the disputed property prior to 1950 and the appellants have filed suit in the year 1980 after lapse of thirty years of such possession of the Government. The respondents have not admitted that they were licensee or holding the property under any agreement or contract, inter alia, they have claimed adverse possession especially on the basis of Ex.D-4. . In order to prove the fact it was permissive possession, heavy burden was upon the appellants.” They have relied on Ex.P—1, alleged letter WW f'V written by some person, which is not official document or has not been written in discharge of official duty of any of the officers. Except Ex.P-1, the appellants have not med any document to show that the possession of the respondents was ever permissive or is a licensee or under any agreement of lease. In these circumstances, by arriving at finding that possession of the respondents was adverse to the appellants, both the Courts below have not committed any illegality, and factum of adverse possession was sufhcient for dismissal of suit and appeal of the appellants. . Therefore, i do not find any substance or substantial question of law in the appeal. Consequently, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed,.at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs. ‘ . Consequently, l.A.No.1 stands disposed of. /, sdl- ~ T. a Sham“ Judge ’/ Soma