1. The substantial questions of law involved, formulated and to be answered by this Court in the appeal preferred by the defendants/State are as under:-

i. Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in reversing the finding on issue No.1 holding that the plaintiff is entitled for decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction ignoring the fact that the suit land is Nazul Land?

ii. Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in holding that the suit is not barred by the provisions contained in Section 57(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959?

iii. Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in reversing the well reasoned findings of the trial Court by recording findings which are perverse and contrary to the record?

2. The above-stated substantial questions of law are required to be answered in the following factual backdrop:-

(Parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status shown in the suit before the trial Court.)

3. The respondent plaintiff instituted a civil suit for declaration of his title and permanent injunction over the suit land situated at Village Namnakala, Patwari Halka No.36(B) of Tahsil Ambikapur ad-measuring total area of 11.37 acres of land, pleading inter alia that the scheduled suit land was given in the year 1930 by the then Ruler of Sarguja State to his father Late Shri Panchuram for construction of house, for using as badi and also for agricultural purposes. It has further been pleaded that the said Panchuram, father of the plaintiff, was in possession of the suit land during his lifetime and thereafter, after his death it was succeeded by the plaintiff and the plaintiff is continuing in possession of the suit land. It was also pleaded that recognizing his long possession, the land was likely to be settled in favour of the plaintiff, the Tahsildar, Ambikapur in a duly instituted revenue case with due recommendation, sent his report to the Collector, Ambikapur – defendant No.3 on 18-2-1985 and accepting the report of the Tahsildar, the Collector, Ambikapur ought to have granted lease/patta in favour of the plaintiff, but the Collector/defendant No.3 in turn, sent the case to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambikapur under Section 57(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 for deciding the dispute, however, the defendant/Sub-Divisional Officer did not decide the dispute and again sent report to the Collector that the suit land has been declared as Nazul land in the year 1973, therefore, it ought to be decided by the Nazul Officer of the Collectorate. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff is in possession since 1930 and he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession and before declaring the land to be Nazul land, the plaintiff was never noticed and therefore, he claimed relief that since he is in possession for last 60 years and has perfected his title by way of adverse possession, he be declared Bhumi Swami. It was also pleaded that the defendants be directed that the plaintiff be granted lease of the said land under the Singhdeo Special Scheme after declaring him Bhumi Swami.

4. On being summoned, the defendants filed their joint written statement stating inter alia that neither the plaintiff's father nor the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land, the plaintiff has encroached upon some part of the suit land and the suit land is within the municipal limits of Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur. It has been pleaded that earlier, it was forest land, it has been converted into revenue land and ultimately, it has been declared as Nazul land and notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has not been served to the State. It has been further pleaded that the suit is barred under Section 57 of the Land Revenue Code and as such deserves to be dismissed.

5. The trial Court framed following issues and decided all the issues in negative and thereby, dismissed the suit:-

1- D;k oknHkwfe [kåuaå 243@1] 243@14] 243@15] 243@16] 243@23] 243@24 rF