JUDGMENT :

1. This second appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff (now, his LRs.) was admitted for hearing on the following two substantial questions of law :-

“(1) Whether the Courts below have committed an error of law by dismissing the plaintiff's suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ?

(2) Whether the Courts below are justified in holding that the plaintiff's suit is barred under Section 257 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 ?”

[The parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their status given and ranking shown in the plaint before the trial Court.]

2. The suit land bearing Khasra No. 219/4 admeasuring 1.131 hectares is a part of the land bearing Khasra No. 219/1 total area 4.407 hectares. The said suit land is admittedly Government land reserved/earmarked for the purpose of grazing by the competent authority under the provisions of Section 237(1) of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

3. The original plaintiff Arjun Dubey i.e. father of the appellants herein filed an application before the Sub-divisional Officer (Revenue), Ramanujganj stating inter alia that though the land bearing Khasra No. 219/1 admeasuring 4.407 hectares is reserved by the Government for the purpose of grazing, but since he is in cultivating possession of 1.131 hectares of the said land for the last 35 years, therefore, the said land be settled in his favour, which the Sub-divisional Officer (R) enquired into and ultimately, by exercising the power under Section 237(2) of the Land Revenue Code, vide order dated 05/10/1982, deleted the suit land from the Nistar Patra and made it open for using it as agricultural land and thereby, settled it in favour of the plaintiff. Later on, the Collector, Sarguja on being informed about the same, took up the matter on suo moto revisional jurisdiction and vide order dated 10/02/1986 (Ex. P/5) revoked the order of the Sub-divisional Officer dated 05/10/1982 denotifying the said land reserved for the purpose of grazing and settling it in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff questioned the order before the Commissioner by way of revision but he remained unsuccessful which led to the filing of the suit by the plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction stating that he is in settled possession of the suit land and the order of the Collector (Ex. P/5) setting aside the order of the Sub-divisional Officer is unsustainable and bad in law, as such, he is entitled for decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

4. In the first round of litigation, the State of Chhattisgarh remained ex-parte and an ex-parte decree was granted by the trial Court which was later on set aside and the matter was remitted to the trial Court to decide it afresh after giving an opportunity to the State and other defendants. In the second round of litigation, learned trial Court framed an issue as to whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred and ultimately, vide its judgment and decree dated 10/12/1999, dismissed the suit holding that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred by Section 237(2) of the Land Revenue Code.

5. On appeal being preferred by the plaintiff under Section 96 of CPC, learned first appellate Court also agreed with the finding recorded by the trial Court qua the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit and dismissed the appeal by its impugned judgment and decree dated 21/01/2010 against which this second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff (now his Lrs.) under Section 100 of CPC in which two substantial questions of law have already been framed and set out in the opening paragraph of the judgment.

6. Mr. A.N. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff (now his Lrs.), would submit that both the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff by recording a finding which is perverse and contrary to the record holding that the suit as framed and filed by the plaintiff is not