F c. INTHE HIGH COURT OFCHHAmSGARH BILASPUR SECONDAPPEAL N0. '^-^'^OF 2010 APPELLANT : Satyanarayan S/o Adhardas Slna^S PLAINTIFF Sonwani , aged .about 52 years, R/o Qsn ^ ^ ^ ^.-^^VUlage Harinbhatta, TahsU Simga, P.S ^ fS^ ^(*.-- ^ ' . Jp'fe^ [^ ,\.^- ..-^* ..-•y Siniga, District Raipur (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. Gram Panchayat Harinbhatta DEFENDANTS Through the Secretaiy, Gram Panchayat Harinbhatta, Block and Tahsil & P.S. Simga, District Raipur (CG). 2. Sarpanch Tikaram S/o Itwari Satnami, aged about 25 years, Panchayat Harinbhatta, Tahsil and P.S. Simga, District Raipur (CG). 3. Tanturam S/o Ainamath Satnami (Taturam @ Tajuram), aged about 22 years Village Harinbhatta , Tahsil and P.S. Simga, District Raipiir (CG). 4. Radhu S/o Itwari Satnami, aged 25 years, VUlage Harinbhatta, Tahsil and P.S. Simga, District Raipur (CG). 5. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector Raipur, District Raipur (CG). MEMORANDUM OF SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CrVIL PROCEDURE CODE >>• ^ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinflle Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Appellant Respondents Second Appeal No.247 of 2010 Satyanarayan versus Gram Panchayat Harinbhatta and others Present: Shri Awadh Tripathi, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent No.5. Second Appeal under Section 1 00 of the Code of Civil Procedure ORAL ORDER (Passed on 18th November, 2010) Heard on admission. * 2. Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiffs suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants/respondents from interfering in his possession over the suit tanks. The suit pertains to two tanks situated on Khasra No. 1568 known as Bada Talab and Khasra No.210 known as Nakta Talab. The plaintiff filed the suit after the Gram Panchayat proceeded to grant lease of fishing right by inviting applications. 3. • According to the plaintiff, the tanks belonged to his fore- fathers, who were Malgujars of the lands. Referring to Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2, the plaintiff has stated that the record of rights/Jamabandi of those years records the name of his father Adhar Satnami, therefore, the plaintiff is the owner being the son ofAdhar Satnami. In Ex.D-9, .••^•^^ ^. " S^^s^ 1 1 '^-•"""'y » '%... '^y l'<^s-,-SK-3?' the Additional Collector, Raipur passed an order handing over the tanks and vesting them in the Gram Panchayat. This order was passed on 7-6-1975, however, it was not challenged by the plaintiff immediately after 1975. In paragraph 5 of his statement, the plaintiff has admitted that he was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat from 1964 to 1988. This fact itselfwould suggest that he was aware of the order regarding vesting of the tanks in the Gram Panchayat and yet no step was taken by him claiming title in himself or to file the suit seeking permanent injunction. 4. The Courts belowhave also observed that the plaintiff's father was a Malgujar. Under the relevant provisions contained in the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, all tanks have been vested in the State and those which were allowed to be occupied/possessed by the Malgujars, orders were passed by the competent authority. No such order has been placed on record by the plaintiff and the suit was filed after 45 years from the date of coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950. 5. In the absence ofany document of recent origin recording the name of the plaintiff or his father asowner in the revenue records, the Fearned Court below has not committed any error in dismissing the suit. 6. No substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. The second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge