i';'. ^-*'c:i <^. IC,!1 ^ XK^B;!. a ^>. 1 iiig^EE: ^ HfGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Singl^Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. S.A. No.251/2004 M ^ ltS!(!Sis&£" Appellant PIaintiff Respondents Defendants 1. Smt. Malin Bee, W/o Sekh Usman, Aged 50 years, Caste-Musalman, R/o Sukma, Tahsil Konta, District Dantewada (C.G.) Versus Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Konta, Post Sukma, Tahsil Konta, District Dantewada (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector Bastar, District Office Jagdalpur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 3. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Sukma, Tahsil Konta, District Dantewada (C.G.) SECOND APPEAL U/S 100 OF C.P.C. Present : Appellant by ShriRatan Pushty,-Advocate. Respondents by Shri G.D.Vaswani, GovernmentAdvocate ORAL JUDGMENT (Passed on 29m September, 2008) Heard on admission. 2. The appellant/plaintiff is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26th July, 2003 passed in Civil AppealNo. 46-A/2002 by the 1st Additional District Judge, Bastar place Jagdalpur affirming the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2001 passed in Civil Suit No. 3-A/2001 by the Civil Judge Class-1, Sukma whereby the appellant/plaintiffs suit for declaration of title, confirfnation of possession, permanent injunction and for declaring void the order whereby patta of the suit land issued in her. favour was cancelled was dismissed. l ll ~i l[ii rll-*' ~u*°fcj-:; ^ ^f.y'- '-•^-•s'-t •<'» 'y^ >>,. »-^-?^ ~:'!iasaas^'' i4 < — 3-' ^^s'aMsssf ^^is-^sy- 3. The appellant/plaintiff had averred in the plaint that she was Bhoomiswami of the land Kh.No.464/2, area 3 acres and Kh.No.475/2 area 50 decimals (henceforth 'the suit land) situated in village Sukma, Tahsil Konta, District Bastar and was in possession thereof. It was also averred that without notice to the appellant/plaintiff, the respondent No.1 terminated the Bhoomiswami rights of the plaintiff over the suit land in Revenue Case No. 66/3T-19(5)790-91. On these premises, a declaration that the plaintiff was the owner and in possession of the suit land and that the order passed in above mentioned revenue case was void was sought. A permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with the possession ofthe appellant/plaintiffwas also prayed for. 4. Both the Courts below have held that the appellant/plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land. It is pertjnent to note that in the plaint the appellant/plaintiff did not plead the source of title over the suit land. The said patta whereby the land was allotted to the plaintiff was aJso not filed by the plaintiff. On the basis of admission by the husband of the plaintiff, the lower Appellate Court has observed in paragraph 12 that the appellant/plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land. Ex.D.4 further shows that on the suit land as many as 43 trees of different varieties were situated. The lower Appellate Court has further observed in paragraph 13 that if the suit land was allotted to the appellant/plaintiff on 03.12.1980 she ought to have filed documents to evidence her possession over the suit land from(the year 1980. Ne such document was filed. The manner in which the suit land was allotted has also been dealt with by the lower Appellate Court in paragraph 13 which shows that neither the plaintiff had applied for paffa nor did she ever visit the tahsil Court and her statement was also never recorded. On the basis of a cyclostyled statement which was signed by her husband and without obtaining a report from the Gram riij: ^^^^S'sS&^^SS^a: P -lKnB-: ^^s— Anjani ^ (, - -1 — Panchayat, the tahsildar had issued a patta in the name of the plaintiff. The suit land was situated on National Highway on which forest shrubs and trees of timber wood were situated which could not be allotted to the plaintiff. 5. Having considered fhe findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the judgment and decree, l am ofthe considered opinion that both the Courts below have rightly declined to grant relief to the plaintiff. The appellant/plaintiff neither pleaded the source of her title nor was able to show that any valid patta was issued in her favour in 1980 or that she was ever in possession thereafter. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises for determination of this appeal which is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. Sdl- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge rtt-SB> ;1T'^^.j^^ii "': i:" •—-•— — • •••—- . ,.——. •.•^;.(._J ^., ^-,-.;.<:,riiB.W§fcr±?SS ?- •-; H-s "'• •^m'w':^'^??^@^^I^?^;:^3^;;i ^'''''!'i:'i^''t'; •^?':m"':~~:f^