J ^ IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SECOND ^^^APPEALU/S 100 OF C.P.C. S.A. No. ^ 7 /2011 AP^ELLANTS ^Pf.AINTIFFS -^) (2) ^^^ RESPONDENTS :- DEFENDANTS ^- (21 •^\ ^ .^•7 w/^ ' /^ (4J- (^) (6J Moharamad Hanif, S/o - Rahim Baqsh, aged about 70 years, Mohamniad Salim, S/o Mohammad Hanif, Aged about -43 years, Both R/o - Gaurela, Tahsil - Pendra Road, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus State ofC.G., through Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) Sub - Divisional.,0fficer, Pendra Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Gaurela, Tahsil - Pandra Road, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Mohammad Istkhar, S/o - Late Mohammad Yakub, Aged about 37 Years. Noor Jahah, W/o Late - Mohammad Yakub, Aged about -55 Years. Both 4 & 5 R/o- Amarkantak Road, Gaurela, Tahsil - Pendra Road, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Kumari Geetika, D/o Manendra Pal Singh, Aged about - 20 Years, R/o - Tikerkala, Tahsil - Pendra Road, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ^•" SECOND CIVIL APPEAL U/S - 100 OF THE C.P.C. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J. S.A.No.87of2011 APPELLANTS Mohammad Hanjf and another. Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others. Smt. Meera Ansari, counsel for appeliants. Miss Sangeota Mishra, Pane! Lawyer for tfrie Stato. ORAL ORDER (22/06/2011) Heard. (2) Plaintiffs' sujt for deciaration and poss^ssion has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The dispute pertains to Tank situated on Khasra Nos. 744. 745 and 747 admeasuring about 6 acres situated at vjllage Teekarkala, Tahsil - Pendra Road. According to the plaintiffe they have purchased the property from Ratna Kumari wife of Lallu Mohan Singh on 22/07/1996 and are in possession thereof from the date of sale-deed, however defendant Mohammad Yakub started creating dlsturbance and in proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. possession was handed over to said Mohammad Yakub. In the meanwhile, the tank has been vested in the State Government under Section 251 ofthe Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code 1959'), however the said orcter is null and void. (3) According to the defendants the subject property is not Padti Land but is a tank, therefore it could not have been sbld by the widow of the Ex-Jamidar, because the tank has vested in the State Government under 'i/Section 251 of the Code 1959. The State Govemment has also filed its 'T's^. /,-• ifi 1 ^ '^^y/ l':<-:^^3^^ written statement and contested the suit on submission that the subject tank has been vested in the State Government and its possession has been handed over to the local Municjpality, therefore, the suit deserves to be dismissed. (4) The trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court has found that the tank has been vested in the State Government and an order to this effect has been passed by the Sub Djvisionaj OfRcer (Revenue), Pendra Road on 22/10/2001 (Ex.P/15). It has also been found that the plaintiff is not the title holder and was never in possessjon ofthesuitproperty. (5) This Court has gone through the record. Ex.P/11 is a report submitted by the Tahsildar mentioning that the subject tank is a Nistari tank and is also used by the local Muslim population to perform their reljgious rights in connection with jmmersion of Tajiya at the time of Moharram. Ex.P/15 is an order passed by the Sub Divisional OfRcer directing vesting of the tank and mentioning of the name of the State Government as owner in the revenue records. (6) In view of the evidence avaiiabje on record and the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below which are not found to be illegal or per/erse so as to involve a substantial question of law. the second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge )^