•^^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^a^'C Second Appeal No. ^^ Of2005. APPELLANT 1PLAINTIFF ^^^•& ^•y^- '^ /Shri Balaji Swami (Shri Dudhadhari Math) Registered Public Trost, Raipur, through Rajeshri Mahant Ramsunder Das, Guru Late Shri Mahant Vaishnavdasji, Dudha- dhari math, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) t VER S U S RESPONDENTS ^EffcFENDENTS ^r^f^ ,-^<»,^ 1. Biselal, son ofDhanwar Sonwaai, ^ »^-*^^ ^-^,.^^^.. ^, e-'Resident ofNear Station, Abhanpur, ^c?7 Cry•s» ',<^ Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.), ^ ^^' •£>• 2. State ofChhatttisgarh, Through Collector f Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). ^ —APEEALUNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE XI-HC-22 3^ '^wwi{, aTfl+i'is, Rtciiyy 3T(^?TTaW HWVII Shllch -••-•••••••••••••••y^200 fa^; sn^rqiT R-ficbsn^r Sbli* (ri?(T sn^T s^ttrerc Hf?tr 14.08.2 Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Ad coiuisel for the appellant. Arguinents heard on adin Order dictated as foUows; sed-oad This is the plaintiffs 100 of the Code of Civil decree dated 30,08.2005 passf^d by flie District Judge, Raipur decree dated 15.03.2005 passe^ the VIth Civfl Judge, Class-I, R both the Courts. The biief facts are ftiat ft Registered Public Trust which| vfllage Abhanpur, District- defendaut, respondent No.l Sq.Ft. of Kliasra No. 499/92 l|< raised certain. coastniction encroachiaent was not reiaoved ffle a suit for eviction and als( along with fatiire niesne possessiou. The defendant encroached iipon any portion Raitiui «tii'iit<-]41-f >iitictTfftec3'<.Ri.L<;]<. ^srf^iTan^r ifocate with Ku. Saageeta Mishra, ission. appeal, ffled uuder Section Proc^diiic against the judgment and in Civfl Appeal No. 15-A/2005 '.G.) arisiilg out ofjudgnient and in Civil Suit No. 457-A/2002 by ^aipur (C.G.). The plaintifflost ia projfit ratsed le plauitiff, appeUant hereiu, is a has certain landed pi~operty in :)ur. The afegations are that fhe tierein, encroached upon 2944 otal area 11.945 hectares as he r it ilt the year 1988, Since the , the plaiatifF was constrained to ? for inesne profit of Rs. 1,000/- fit tUl the date of recoveiy of fhe plea that he has not Khasra No. 499/92 as he is in n -,~-P /» -ai'- df ETa"" ^J^^ft^"^^' XI-HC-22 sn^r^r R-ii+sn^r sti*iifi (ifgg' 3ST 'oi'iiiciii, yTn«'is,(sx'ii+iy 3TT^7T^=IW_ , _ .. .-$.A,^o. 5"45'/2-^CIS.' *11*1MI sh*1|ch ••••••••••••••••••••• ^yf 200 R'b.A 3n^T?TcrrwHf?(T -•2 possession of Khasra No. 30/ Shyam. Bai in the year 1983. The trial Court fKuued i^cording evidence caine to c^ not establish that defendaat Sq.Ft. area of suit land of K] disiuissed on tlus grouad. Thi] the trial Court^ was chaUenj also held that the plaintiff 4 evidence to hold fhat auy portit defendant No. 1 and ultiinately is against fhis judgraent ai| appeUate Coiirt, fhis second ^ Court. Leamed counsel for the in rclation to encroachinent is 7 have goae through th^ appears that for proving th^ plaiatifFhas examiaed one Pra1{ examined one Dhaneadra Sing^ oral evidence offhese two eacroached zipoa 2944 Sq.Ft. the proper<3r of the Trust but e^ vague aad gerieral, 'flo steps ha^ plamtifF to prove fhe eucroachto.ent <tii<<fa'fl-< ^it<!-ir^'fs<^i'<Ri+tfi< ^arf^iTan^r !5 which he pzirchased froin one vslrious issiies in this case and after (tlldusion that the plaitittff could flo. 1 has encroached upon 2944 }iasra No. 499/92. The suit was ^ judgnient aad decree^passed by pf. in. appeal. The appeUate Coiirt (ould not establish by suf&cient (?n of suit land was encroached by |the appesi was also dismissed. It (d decree passed by the lower jippeal has beea filed beforc this appeUant argues that the finding tierverse. records of the Courts below. It factum. of encroachiuent, fhe thu Ram as PW-1 and has also |i as PW-2. Though it conies in fhe that the defendant No. l had witatsses pfKhasra No. 499/92 which was .1 &%.-.,- (cept their oral evidence which,tod ^e been takeu from the side ofthe bv defeudaat No.l. In this "J """—"^^_JU "3' ^ XI-HC-22 35T ^||<<|dq, aTflu'IS, IsfitKHy 3TT^?Tyacb ^5- A • Mo ^ 5'4$/(y^oS" Ri'ti'A an^r^iT f^iNisfi^r 9lt| HfgcT ^ptfepft-i WR^TT ir'te'^i'rfwep ^isri^rsn^T case, neither a demarcatio deinarcatiou report showui^ plamtiff, In the opinion of circiiinstaaces of the case, 1 appeUate Court have rightly plaintiff could not establish upon suiy portion ofthe siut I do not find any perv iccorded by the two Courts bel^ involves for consideiation in inerits and the same is dismissl |i was done nor auy earlier lencroachnient was ffled bv fhe ftlis thEJit lailid Court, in the facts and lie trial Court as weU as first recorded fhe finding that the defendaat No. 1 has eucroached as pleaded in the plaint. ersity in the conciirrent finduig >w. No substantial qiiestion oflaw fhis appeal. The appeal has no sd at the motion stage itself. Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge •fSir