^ •-•Y.^," 4 c^ ^' ./L^ % ^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR C.R.NO. (^ /2004 3ffll@ i APPLICANT PLAINTIFF 7 ^ \ ^^ ^ ^••'" iA^" ,^^i '^>v' €^- ^ '^ NON-APPLICANTS PLAINTIFF AJURAM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, SON OF SHRI KULESHWAR SAHU, OCCU - AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BIGHUL, P.H. N0. 3, TAHSIL - NAWAGARH, DISTRICTDURG (C.G.) VERSUS 1. BANSILAL, AGE 39 YEARS, ./ , SON OF SHRI SUKUL SAHU, -OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BIGHUL, NEAR KATHA MALAINPARA NALA, P.H. N0. 3, TAHSIL - NAWAGARH, DISTRICTDURG (C.G.) ^-2. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH :* DISTRICT COLLECTOR DISTT. DURG (CG) CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra C.R. No.13/2004 Applicant Plaintjff Non-apDlicants Plaintiff Ajuram Versus Bansilal and another Present: Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel for the applicant. Shri Anil S. Pandey, counsel for the non-applicant No.1. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/non-applicant No.2. Oral Order (06.07.2010) Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiffs suit for damages of Rs.15,000/- from the defendants. 2. The case of the plaintiff/applicant in short is that he has constructed a house on a piece of 'Abadl' land in the village. Sometimes in the year 1997, a meeting of the villagers took place, in which it was decided that all such viJlagers who have encroached over Government land, shall remove their encroachment on their own and that the 'Halka Patwari' shall measure the house of the villagers at their request. According to the plaintiff, he requested the defendant No.1, who was Patwari of the vjllage, at that point of time to measure the house and inform him as to oh which portion the plaintiff had made encroachment. However, the defendant No.1 refused to take measurement of the plaintiffs house. The plaintiff fearing the outburst by the villagers against him, demolished such part of his house, which according to him was under encroachment. A few ^days after the demolJtion when the measurement was taken, the ®%^?%^^??ajss?3^s'33s^^^ w^~~w ^- t2L K plaintiff came to know that he has demolished some part of his house which was constructed on his own land. According to the plaintiff, thedefendant No.1 Paftyan" deliberately did not measure the house with a malafide intention, so as to cause harm and damage to him. He prayed for a decree for damages of Rs.15,000/- to be paid by both the non-applicants. 3. The defendants resisted the suit by submitting that the plaintiff has himself demolished the structure. The defendant No.1 denjed that the he had ever agreed to measure the plaintiffs house. Referring to the Patwari's manual, it is hjs defence that for obtaining measurement of a land or building, rules have been framed under Section.129 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and under the said rules, measurements are made by the Patwari when a Bhoomiswamy moves an application before the Tahsildar and the Patwari Is, thereafter, directed by the Revenue Court. The defendant No.1 denied that he has undertaken measurement ofthe house of any ofthe villagers. 4. The trial Court, on the basis of evidence on record, dismissed the suit after finding that there was no III intention on the part ofthe defendant No.1 in not undertaking measurement of the house belonging to the applicant/plajntiff. The trial Court also found that none ofthe defendants are responsible or instrumental in causing any damage to the plaintiff and as such the plaiintiff is not entitled to seek damages. 5. The appellate Court has recorded a finding that though the Patwari was not under an obligation to take measurement of the house of the plaintiff, but he was duty bound to take measurement of the public street. However, since no such case has been framed, pleaded and proved by the plaintiff, the appellate Court also dismissed the suit. However, the decree passed by the trial Court imposing cost on the plaintiff has been Iset aside. k. ~iy -3- Priya 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court sees no reason to take a different view than what has been taken by the trial Court. The finding that Patwari has not obligated to measure. the building of the applicant and that the plaintiff himself demolished his structure are pure findings of fact, which cannot be interfered in this civil revision. 7. To seek damages in a case of this nature,where the act of demolition has not been alleged against the defendant No.1, but the only allegation against him is that had he not refused to measure the house belonging t6 the applicant, there would have been no occasion to demolish such part of the house belonging to the plaintiff, which was later on found to be constructed on his own land. The nature of pleading required to prove malafide or ill intention on the part of defendant No.1 is not available in this case. It is not a case where the plaintiff and defendant No.1 were not having good relatjon and because of some enmity or 111 will, the defendant No.1 deliberately decided to causedamage or that the demolition undertaken by the plaintiff himself was a result of some positive action of the defendant No.1. From the record, it would be apparent that the Patwari was not directed by any higher Officer to obtain measurement of the house of the plaintiff. No application for measurement was ejther moved before him by the plaintiff. The Patwari was thus not underthe obligation to measure the house of the plaintiff merely on his oral request. 8. Considering the entirety of the pleading and the evidence on record, this Court does not find any ground for interference as the Courts below have' not committed any illegality or material irregularity in the exercise ofjurisdiction. 9. Accordingly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. fSd/1- prashantKumarMfehra Judge II.,_,__--._-, ^-^-r