.,1° HIGHCOURT OFCHHATtlSGARH. BILASPUR Second Appeal No.150 of 201 O APPELLANT/: (Plaintiff) RESPONDENTS/: (Defendants) 2. 3. 4. Bharat Lal S/o Manrakhan Verma, aged about 35 years, Occupation Cultivator, R/o village Nawapara, P.C.No.27, Revenue Circle Jaraud, Tahsil Sjmga, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector,Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer, Bhatapara Division, Bhatapara, District Raipur Tahsildar, Simga, DistrictRaipur(C.G.) Naib Tahsildar, Sub Tahsil Suhela, DistrictRaipur (C.G.) . {Seeond appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code} Present: .: 1.-:1'•. ;. ! •:''/1'"1'..;',;' • •• 'il •.';1'...,1'1''.. .':'•"-.• Mr, A.P. Sharma, counsel for the appeilant. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Deputy Gcvt. Advocate for the.State/' ' respondents. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr.T.P. Sharma.J ORALJUDGMENT (10-9-2010) 1. Heardon admission. 2. Judgment & decree dated 20-1-2010 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazaar in Civil Appeal No.60A/2008 dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment& decree dated 16-7-2008 passed by the Civil Judge Class-11, Simga in Civil Suit No.57A/2007 and records of the Cpurts below perused. 3. As per the claim pf the appellant, the appellant was in peaceful possession of the suit land shown in the plaint which was Govemment ~ land from last thirty years and has paid the amountofcantqok bundig 81. fine through his father and, therefore, he has perfected his title by adverse possession from last thirty years against the Government. After affording opportunity of hearing, bpth the Courts below have dismissed the syif & the appeal of the appellant on the ground that he has not Soma perfected title by way of adverse possession and, therefore, he is not entitled for declaration and injunction of the suit property. .-/ 4. As per documentary and oral evidence, father of the appeilant has paid the amount pf cantook bundigby some receipts and has paid fine since 1983, but that does not prove the fact that the appellant was in possession ofthe afpresaid Governmentland i.e. the suit property since last thirty years and has perfected his title over the syit land. Both the Courts below have rightly dismissed :the suit and the appeal ot the appellant. 1 do not find any substantial question of law fpr the decision qf this appeal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, at the admissjon stage itself. Noorder as tocosts. Sd/- I :.;••:; .:••-:. T.R Sharma Judge ^ .•r[ •':' •.^••\: .'l'.