Back
2020 Supreme(Chh) 233
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K Agrawal, J.
GRAM PANCHAYAT JAIMURA TAHSIL KHARSIYA - Appellant
Versus
NIRNIDHI - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 179 of 2009
Decided On : 12-03-2020
Amit Sharma, Advocate, M.K. Jaiswal, Advocate, Ravi Bhagat, Advocate
Headnote:
Suit Land - Possession - Possession Of Land - Whether both Courts below were unjustified in holding that original plaintiff have perfected their title over suit land by way of adverse possession by recording a finding which is perverse and contrary to the record in view of the principle of law laid down by Supreme Court - Suit land is government land (grass land) and reserved for public utility and on Primary Health Centre, Jaimura has already been constructed by Gram Panchayat Jaimura-appellant herein. Original plaintiff claimed title & adverse possession on the basis of his long and continuous possession & on basis of his name having been recorded in 5 in remarks column and claimed declaration of title, permanent injunction and demolition of Primary Health Centre constructed by defendant No.2-Gram Panchayat-Jaimura - Defendants No.2 and 3 filed their written statement and denied the averments made in plaint stating inter-alia that suit land is government land and reserved for public utility i.e. for road and Primary Health Centre, decree declaring title based on adverse possession cannot be granted in favour of plaintiff – Held, It has not been shown that entry made in remarks column was made in accordance with rules - Plaintiffs pleading and filing documents placing reliance on Khasra entries was required to examine Patwari who made entry for relevant years to prove same, which plaintiff failed to examine - Two Courts below committed an illegality by holding that the plaintiff has proved his possession on the basis of entry made by patwari in remarks column, which patwari is not authorized to record, as such, finding of continuous and long possession recorded by both Courts below is perverse - State Government is owner of suit land and suit land has been reserved for public utility i.e. for road and Primary Health Centre - Supreme Court has authoritatively pronounced that land reserved for public utility right based on adverse possession would not accrue and no rights can accrue by adverse possession, which is clearly applicable to facts of present case and as such, plaintiff cannot claim adverse possession on the land reserved for public utility such as road/hospital etc - Appeal is allowed.
Key Points: - The suit land is government land (grass land) reserved for public utility (road and Primary Health Centre) and the Gram Panchayat constructed a PHC on it (!) (!) - Courts below erred in recognizing adverse possession rights against government land reserved for public utility, in light of Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Section 57, and Article 112 Limitation Act, 1963 (!) (!) (!) - Plaintiff failed to prove adverse possession as to a land reserved for public utility; entries in remarks column by Patwari not legally presumptive; need for title/deed or long possession exceeding 30 years against government, with proper evidence (!) (!) (!) (!)
Question 1?
Question 2?
Question 3?
JUDGMENT
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. - The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this second appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants is as under:-
"Whether both the Courts below were unjustified in holding that original plaintiff - Ganpat Lal Patel (Now, his Lrs.) have perfected their title over the suit land by way of adverse possession by recording a finding which is perverse and contrary to the record in view of the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in paragraph 63 in the matter of Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Ors. v. Manjit Kaur and Ors., (2019) 8 SCC 729 ?"
[For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown and nomenclature in the suit before the trial Court].
2. Admittedly, the suit land bearing Khasra Nos.415 and 416 is government land (grass land) and reserved for public utility and on Khasra No.415 Primary Health Centre, Jaimura has already been constructed by Gram Panchayat Jaimura-appellant herein. Original plaintiff claimed title & adverse possession on the basis of his long and continuous possession & on the basis of his name having been recorded in Exs.P-1 to P-5 in remarks column (column NO.12) and claimed declaration of title, permanent injunction and demolition of Primary Health Centre constructed by defendant No.2-Gram Panchayat-Jaimura.
3. Defendants No.2 and 3 filed their written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint stating inter-alia that the suit land is government land and reserved for public utility i.e. for road and Primary Health Centre, therefore, decree declaring title based on adverse possession cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiff.
4. The trial Court upon evaluation and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment and decree dated 17.1.2002, held in para-13 that the suit land is government land and reserved for public utility i.e. for road and Primary Health Centre and after found that on Khasra No.415 Primary Health Centre has already been constructed on 17.11.95 proceeded to examine on the basis of Exs.P-1 to P-5 and held that the suit land is in possession of the plaintiff for last 90 years, as such, he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. On appeal being preferred by the appellants/defendants, the first appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Questioning the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been filed by the appellants/defendants, in which substantial question of law has been formulated by this Court, which has been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.
5. Mr.Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, would submit that the suit land is reserved for public utility and in view of latest decision of the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal (supra) (para-63), plea of adverse possession is not available on the land reserved for public utility and the plaintiff has failed to prove continuous and uninterrupted possession on the basis of entry made in remarks column (column No.12), as such, the judgment and decree of both the Courts below deserve to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, Mr.M.K.Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4, 6 and 7, would submit that decree has rightly been granted in favour of the plaintiff.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.
8. Admittedly, the suit land bearing Khasra Nos.415 and 416 is government land (grass land). It is also established that both the lands were reserved for public utility and on Khasra No.415 Primary Health Centre has already been constructed and hospital is running on the said land, on which, the plaintiff claimed adverse possession.
9. Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for period of limitation for fili
