C,( <0/ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) •ZjQjo SECQND APPEAL N0. ,<3. •^—OF^6e9—^Rf APPELLANTS PLAINTIFFS ^s< ^^.^' RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS 1. Futu Bai, W/o Bahalsingh Lodhi, / aged about 70 years, R/o Bhusandi, Post Karesara, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C.G.) .2. Parubai, W/o Tekram Lodhi, aged if».^~r . about 68 years, R/o Hedaspur, Post Karesara, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the District Judge, Durg (C.G.) ^.2. Churaman, S/o Lacchiram, aged about 65 years, 3. Smt. Umabai, Wd/o Govind Lodhi, aged about 48 years, Tahkur Ram @ Raja, aged about 31 years, Respondent No. 2 to 4 are R/o Village Suvartala, Post Bortara, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C.G.) Smt. Pampibai, W/o Dakvar Verma, aged about 33 years, R/o Village Mountra, Post Parasbond, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C.G.) 'Wt""^®^:l>^B^--:^y.di^^^!R^ff^^ •£!Sgs£a!^a:& y:tttslll M Kw ?.';. R ijA . .^- ./: ;,y ;tj ^ iu 'sjeaA 08 inoqe psBe 'iqpo-i A8p|eg o/s '!L|po^ UBAnqg -£T ^sjeaA £1?inoqe paQe 'itipo-i uoAnijg o/s '!4ieJ!6eL|g •z.z (•3-3) 6jna 43U1SIQ 'efes I'sqei 'equeqqqoH ^sod 'e^e^ 36e||iA o/y 'sjosA QS inoqe psBe '!qpo^ .^ ueAejeN O/M 'ieg eAiDeLji •ILUS 'TT ("5'3).6-ina puisia 'eqpujgqa lisqei 'undje4ue>| 36e||!A o/y 'sjesA Qfr inoqe ps6e '!L|po-i 4>ia4S O/M 'ieg (aeAeAig} -4019 •OT iBABAigj -4LUS <^D'\^70~^' ('S'D) e4p-iBMB>| VWS\Q pue |!SL|BI '(JndJiAuey) eqieLjqjeqo 4SOd 'AeAjeBuoi^] 36e||!A o/y 'sjeaA s^ inoqe psBe 'iqpo-i u6AnL|g o/a 'ieg uiLfujey -4103 (•5-3) 6jna 43U4SIQ 'eCes |!SL)BI 'eAuLuiQg 36e||iA o/y 'sjeeA ss inoqe ps6e ']qpo^ LuejeueL|£) O/M '!eqe|Lue>| •;LUS (•9-3) Bjna PUISIQ 'B4plU9L|a |!SL|Bi '!P>|0» A!MS o/y 's-ieaA 09 inoqo p36e 'iqpo-l ueAnqg o/a 'iequuLieg •ILUS (•9-3) 6jna isuisia 'eres lisqei 'ejeijog isod 'eieiJBAns 36e||!A o/y 'sjosA QS 4noqe ps6e 'in>]PN o/s 'uepueu^ns •6 •8 •9 lli •fc. T "l. •:;;^ .^' Respondent No. 12 & 13 are R/o Village Mongarvay, Post Charbhatha (Ranvirpur), Tahsil and District Kawardha (C.G.) 14. Dakbar, S/o Anjor, aged about 40 years; ••15. Munni Bai @ Rajkumari, Wd/o Shankar Lodhi, aged about 45 years; 16. Narendra Kumar, S/o Shankar Lodhl, aged about 28 years; 17. Virendar Kumar S/o Shankar Lodhi, aged about 25 years; 18. Smt. Gayatri Bai, Wd/o Kamtaprasad, aged about 35 years; 19. Balram, S/o Kamta Prasad, aged about 19 years; 20. Gorelal, S/o Kamta Prasad, aged about 18 years; 21. Ku. Anita, D/o Kamta Prasad, aged about 20 years; 22. Gajendra, S/o Anjor Singh, aged about 21 years. Respondent No. 14 to 22 are R/o Village Munglatola, Post Bortara, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C.G.) ^ BS^II m 81 BEIi ySj^ 23. ^^ Gii. Sakunbai, W/o ^angyr^ Lodhi, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Kanharpuri, Post Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) Tarabai, W/o Deviprasad, aged about not known, R/o Village Jatagharra, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) 25. Meena Bai, D/o Anjor Singh, aged about 25 years, R/o Padmi, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C.G.) 24. 26. 27. sf^' 28. Gajrabai, D/o Anjor Singh, aged about 27 years, R/o Village Kandai, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) Saraswati Bai, W/o Jaleshwar, aged about 26 years, R/o Village Rakhi, Post Devkar, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C.G.) ^^-G^daaJ^ Chatri Bai, W/o ^BhuvanlaJ] aged about 35 years, R/o Village Matra, Post Parasbod, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C.G.) SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION'IOO OFTHE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.1908 ^"" Valuation ofAppeal - Rs. 600/- Court fee affixed - Rs. 60/- '^3sa9!t^lW<^SW K3^^ss!!»S^^^S y\ 1\ ^w NBWWM^W A ^§?l:i';-t.^S31CSi'.;Sn a HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No.82 of 2010 APPELLANTS: Plaintiffs RESPONDENTS: Defendants Futu Bai and another -Versus- State . of Chhattisgarh & others Present Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel forthe appellants. Shri Akhil Agrawal, Panel Lawyerfor the State. Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. ORAL JUDGMENT (30-6-2011) 1 Both the Courts below have concurrently dismissed the relief claimed in the suit. The suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the plaintiffs are co-owners of the suit land ad measuring 42.44 acres along with defendants No.3 to 5 and declaration of 12.44 acres of land as surplus land and its consequent vesting in the State Government and that subsequent allotment proceedings initiated by the Revenue Authority be declared void and the Revenue Authority be permanently injuncted from the allotted land. 2. Admittedly, the appellants are daughters of Lachhuram and Kala Bai, who were holding the subject land. The proceeding under the Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') was completed after passing of the final order by the competent authority on 2-2-1976. 3 The plaintiffs, in substance, have prayed for a declaration that the final order in the ceiling proceeding be declared as null and void and they be :! entitled to a share in the land. 1 -T— 1:^...'\ '%Ss"'''. %'-,. '^ ....-i^ -& Barve 4 Section 46 of the Act is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- "46. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts.- Save as expressly provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall have any jurisdiction— (i) to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the competent authority; and (ii) to grant stay in any case under this Act." 5. On perusal of the above, it is apparent that fhe present suit dealing with the question regarding vatidity or correctness of the order passed by the competent authority declaring 12.44 acres of land assurplus has been filed. Such suit is clearly barred under Section 46 of the Act. 6. Though this point was not agitated, however, since both the Courts below have dismissed the relief claimed in the suit, no case for interference is made out. 7 No substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal, The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. j S^/. j Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge BBST- -^•.—•—asu^ yf-