JUDGMENT :

NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.

1. The second appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the C.P.C. against judgment and decree dated 09.08.2012 (Annexure A/1) passed by First Additional District Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 35A/2011 (Bhagirathi Vs. Bodhan and Another) affirming the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2011 passed by First Civil Judge Class-II, Raigarh (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 63A/2011 (Annexure A/2).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status in Civil Suit No. 63A/2011 which was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

3. The present second appeal has been admitted by this Court vide its order dated 19.07.2021 on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether both the Courts below are justified in holding that the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction is barred by Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 by recording a finding perverse to the record?”

4. The brief facts, as reflected from the plaint averment, are that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration of title and for grant of permanent injunction mainly contending that the land bearing Khasra No. 134 area admeasuring 2.023 Hectare situated at Village- Gervani, Patwari Halka No. 15, Tahsil and District-Raigarh (C.G.) is agricultural land and has been recorded in the name of the plaintiff. The lease of the suit property was allotted to him by Naib Tahsildar/Allotment Officer, Raigarh vide order dated 07.02.1982 and since then he is owner of the suit property. Defendant No. 1 has filed an appeal before Additional Collector, Raigarh bearing Appeal Case No. 48/A-06/07-08 and on the basis of illegal order passed by the Additional Collector, Raigarh on 09.04.2008, defendant No. 1 has recorded his name in the said land.

5. Defendant No. 1 raised objection regarding recording of the name of the plaintiff in Schedule-A of the suit property and filed an application under Section 109 and 110 of the Land Revenue Code before Gram Panchayat-Gervani for mutation of the land in his name, which was rejected vide order dated 18.07.2006. Against that, defendant No. 1 has preferred first appeal before Sub-Divisional Officer, Raigarh, which has been rejected vide order dated 26.02.2007 affirming the order of Naib Tahsildar, Raigarh dated 18.07.2006. Against that, he has preferred second appeal before Collector, Raigarh and the Collector, Raigarh vide order dated 09.04.2008 without any jurisdiction, has rejected the order passed by the Additional Collector and directed for recording of the name of defendant No. 1. It has been further contended that the Additional Collector has no authority to pass order dated 09.04.2008 as per Section 44(2) of the Land Revenue Code. Against order the dated 09.04.2008 passed by the Additional Collector, the plaintiff preferred revision before Commissioner, Bilaspur, which has been rejected by Commissioner, Bilaspur and against that, he has preferred a revision before Board of Revenue, which is pending consideration. It has been further contended that in pursuance of the order passed by the Revenue Court, defendant No. 1 has recorded his name in the revenue record and also made an attempt to get compensation from the land acquisition as the said land is acquired by the State Government for Kelo Irrigation Project. It has been further contended that defendant No. 1 is threatening the plaintiff to take possession of the suit property, which may multiply the litigation. This has necessitated him to file present suit for declaring that the plaintiff is the sole owner of the suit property and defendant No. 1 be kindly restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit property.

6. Defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. before Civil Judge Class-II mainly contended that the land has been acquired by the State Government for Kelo Irrigation Project and compensation has