V. AppeSiant Plaintiff HIGK COURT OF CHHATT8SGARM AT BILASPUR Second Appeai No.340 of 2008 Bachchh Kumar, S/o Dukhbandhu Samant, Aged about 50 yeacs, Occupation Agricufture, R/o Viitage Dharamjaigarh, Dlstrict Rajgarh (Chhatttisgarh). 4 ^) Responcients Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raigarh (CG) 2. Tehsjidar, TehsiS Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (CG). (Second Appeal under Sectton 100 ofthe CPC) Present:- Mr.B.D.Guru and Mr.Rajendra Tnpathi, counse< for the appeilarrt. Mr.RXJha, Dy.Govt.Advocate forthe respondents/State. (SB: Hon'bSe Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) ORALJUDGMENT (1-10-2010) 1. By this second appeaj, the appeltant has chatienged the iegaKty and propriety ofthe judgment and decree dated 9.3.2006 pa^ed by the Districl Judge, Raigarh, in Civii Appeal No.9-A/2005, affirming the judgment snd decree dated 5.7.2005 passed by the 1st Clvii Judge C!ass-l, Raigarh, in Civil Suit'N0.5-A/2003 whereby 1st Civil Judge Ciass-i has dismjs^ed the suit restraining the respondents from recovery/reaiizing the iand revenue 2. I have heard leamed counsel for the partles and perused the judgment and decree ofthe Courts below. 3. As per judgment and decree of the Courts below, the land held by the appelSant was diverted at the instance of the sppelSant and premjum and land revenue was fixed, but the appeSSant has not pald premsum and tend revenue on the ground of some calculation mislalce and finsily, the appeliant fiied civii suit for restraining the r^overy of iand revenue of Rs.64,563/-, which was dismissed by the Courts below. ^w^. A^ -^- 4. Learned counsel for the appetlant submtts that civH suit fried on behaif of the appeliant is maintainable. Sutt is not time barred. The respondent- State has committed jiSegality in initiating recovery proceeding. 5. Ali the questions have been considered and decided by revenue authorjty and the Courts beSow. Jn the present case, concurrent finding of both the Courts below are not Itable to be disturbed without any cog^it reason. 6. I do not find any substantial question of jaw for the decision of the appeai. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is liabte to be ciismissed and it is hereby dismissed at the motSon stage itseif. No order as to costs. 7. M.C.P.No. 1310/2006 and other apptications stand disposed of. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge «