HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIEGARH AT EILASPUE 3A No.283i2im7 S‘mgie Bemh: Hw’bie $h§i Dmp Raggaheb Dashmakh, J‘ Procedure Eeaemh $hri $udhir Verma, counsei for the appeliants. 8hr; Akhi! Agrawal, PL fer State. §7RAL ORDER (Passed on 313‘ July, 2907.) Head en LA. No.2 which is an applisatioa wider Rude-124 Chhat‘tisgarh High Court Rmes, 2065. 0f (2) Learned counse'i for the appenants submitied that the impugned order was passed on $52637 in civii appeai No.07-A/2005. After the order, appettamtidefendant Kevat Ram died on 257.206? whereas the appettant Mott the /4» x of Plaim‘;ffs Kewai Ram, aged ‘2. Siyaram S10 Laie Kewai about 30 yeafs 3. Jairam $Io Late Kewal Ram, aged about 29 years AH the khree applicants are Baghai'ra, Kuma! S/o Late Moth‘am, 32 years, Agriculturist Rio Tahsn Distt. Kawardha aged 1. Defendante ‘ abeut 50 Rio years, Viilage-Mathanikaia, Kawardha, Distt. Kawardha (CG) 2. State of Chhawsgam Durg, Distt. Durg 16G Caf Cede of Civi! ef second asmeaa umder eectiea Ram died on 6.7.2007. Unde¥ Rub-124 of Chhattisgarh High Court Ruieé, 2C05, the iegai representatWes 0f both the deceased appeilants have fiied this appea§. LA. No.2 is aiiowed. (3) Heard learneii counsei for the appeiiants on admission. (4) The appeiiant is aggrievéd by an order dated 30.6.2007 pai3$ed by the Aoiditional District Judge, Bemetara in civii appeai No.7-Al2005, whereby the order ai‘ated 2.3.2005 passed-in civii suit No.13—Ai1gg’i by the Civil Judge, Class-i, Bemetara was affirmed. (5) Learned counsel for the appeiiants didnot dispute that at no point of time, possession of the deceased Kewai Ram and Moti Ram was recorded over the suit iand and there was no documentary evidence to show that they were given ‘Patta’ of the suit lands. He was also not in a position to substantiate that the deceased Kewai Ram and Moti Ram were in possession of the Eand in question at any time before 01 .01 .1971. It was atso not disputed that there is no documentary evidence to show grant of iease of the suit iands by Heera Singh, the originai tenure holder of the iand in favour of the deceased Moti Ram and Kewai Ram before 1.1.1971 In this manner, the accruai of occupancy rtghts tn favour of the deceased Kewal Ram and Mott Ram has not been substantiated by the iearned counsel for the appetiante. (’8) In View of the submission made, l am of the considered opinion that no substantial question of iaw artses for determination in this appeai, which is accordingly diemissed, at the stage of admission. (7) Consequently, LA. No. 1 for grant of stay stands disposed of. ‘\‘\AA\ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Sd/ Judge