2021 Supreme(Chh) 337
SANJAY K.AGRAWAL
Anita Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : B.P. Singh
For the Respondents: Ravi Bhagat, Dy. G.A.
Judgement Key Points
- The second appeal was heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law. [10000095370001]
- The first appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. [10000095370001]
- Counsel for the appellant argued that the erstwhile owner was declared bhumiswami on 28.1.1995, conferring transferable rights, and the sale deed dated 12.2.1996 (Ex. P-5) was valid. [10000095370002]
- Counsel contended the Collector lacked jurisdiction to revoke the patta on 8.12.1997 without hearing the pattadar or appellant. [10000095370002]
- Patta (Ex. P1) was granted to Kejauram for 10 years from 1974-75 to 1984-85, after which the lease expired without extension. [10000095370003]
- Kejauram transferred the land to the plaintiff via registered sale deed dated 12.2.1996 (Ex. P5) without prior permission. [10000095370003]
- The Collector revoked the patta on 08.12.1997 upon discovering the unauthorized transfer in violation of patta terms. [10000095370003]
- The suit land was governmental land, and the patta lease expired in 1985 without renewal. [10000095370004]
- The transfer occurred without the Collector's prior permission, and the revocation order was not challenged in the civil suit. [10000095370004]
- Kejauram had no right, title, or subsisting interest in the land at the time of alienation to the plaintiff. [10000095370004]
- The plaintiff derived title solely from the revoked patta (Ex. P1) issued by the State Government. [10000095370005]
- The plaintiff had no enforceable right, title, or interest under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. [10000095370005]
- No perversity or illegality was found in the findings of the courts below. [10000095370007]
- No substantial question of law arose for determination in the second appeal. [10000095370007]
- The second appeal was dismissed in limine without notice to the other side as devoid of merit. [10000095370008]
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Heard this second appeal on admission and formulation of substantial question of law preferred by the appellant/plaintiff.
2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the first appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction.
3. Mr. B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, would submit that both the Courts below have erred in not decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction, by recording a finding which is perverse and contrary to record. He would further submit that erstwhile owner Kejauram was already declared bhumiswami on 28.1.1995 and therefore, he has a transferable right in the suit land and he has rightly transferred the suit land in favour of the plaintiff by sale deed dated 12.2.1996 (Ex. P-5) and thereafter the Collector has no jurisdiction to cancel the patta granted in favour of Kejauram by order dated 8.12.1997 that too without affording an opportunity of hearing to the then pattadar Kejauram or the present appellant, as such, the second appeal involves substantia
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
