JUDGMENT :

1. Heard on admission.

2. The second appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant under Section 100 of the C.P.C. against judgment and decree dated 16.09.2009 passed by District Judge, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 10A/2008 (Suresh Kumar Agrawal Vs. Jamuna Devi & another) allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2008 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 21A/2006, by which learned trial Court has allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and grant of permanent injunction.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status in Civil Suit No. 21A/2006 which was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and grant of permanent injunction.

4. The brief facts, as reflected from the plaint averments, are that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration and grant of permanent injunction mainly contending that the plaintiff has purchased a land out of Khasra No. 16/2 area admeasuring 0.162 Hectare situated at Village- Baikunthpur, Patwari Halka No. 13, Tahsil & District- Raigarh along with other lands from previous owner of suit land Smt. Phuleshwari Bai through registered sale-deed on 07.10.1992, as such, he is title holder of the land (subsequently the same shall be referred to as suit property) and he is in possession of the suit property. It has been further contended that plaintiff has purchased remaining part of land bearing Khasra No. 16/2, as such, defendant No. 1 has no title over Khasra No. 16/2 (old). It has been further contended that land area admeasuring 0.421 Hectare from Khasra No. 16/1 (total 5.59 acres) has been acquired by the State Government, accordingly, sale-deed in favour of Public Works Department Raigarh Sub-Division has been executed on 07.12.1988 and after the sale-deed, 4.55 acres land remained in Khasra No. 16/1.

5. It has been further contended that husband of defendant No. 1- Jamuna Devi namely Inder Singh Verma moved an application on 14.09.1933 before Tahsildar, Raigah along with map of 16/1 & 16/2 for correction in the map of Khasra No. 16/1, in which, it has been mentioned that Khasra No. 16/2 has already been bifurcated and on the basis of this map, the case of correction of map was registered. The Tahsildar taking cognizance on the application, called for the report from Revenue Inspector and the revenue inspector has submitted report on 28.03.1994. On the basis of report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, the Tahsildar has passed the order on 30.12.1994 which has not been challenged before higher forum provided under the Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short “the Code, 1959”) by defendant.

6. It has been further contended that the Government has made bypass road, which has caused greed in mind of husband of defendant No. 1, which has necessitated him to file another application under Section 113 read with Section 129 of the Code, 1959 for correction in the map of Khasra No. 16 without disclosing about the earlier order passed by the Naib Tahsildar. The Tahsildar vide order dated 10.09.2001 dismissed the application filed by husband of defendant No. 1 without issuing notice and giving opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff by remanding the matter to Tahasildhar for deciding the application afresh after arraying the plaintiff as party to the said application. Being aggrieved with this order, Inder Singh Verma has preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer without impleading the plaintiff as party and the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 14.01.2002 directed for correction in the map. Since, this order was passed without giving any notice to the plaintiff, therefore, he has filed review application, which was also rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 29.01.2002. Thereafter, the matter was remanded and notice was issued as