Revenue records do not establish ownership; the burden of proving title lies with the plaintiff, and failure to provide valid documentation leads to resolution against the claim.

JUDGMENT :

Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.

1. This Second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') by the plaintiff questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 15-3- 2011 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Manendragarh, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 44-A/2010 by which learned lower Appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the defendant and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 27-A/2002.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been described as per their description before the Civil Suit No. 27-A/2002.

3. The appeal was admitted by this Court on 5.5.2016 on the following substantial questions of law :-

(I) Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court is perverse since on the basis of settled possession the presumption of burden of proof of ownership shifted to the SECL which is denied the ownership by virtue of Section 110 of the Evidence Act?

(ii) Whether the lower appellate Court was not justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court without appreciating the document of title ie., record of right?

Brief Facts as reflected from the plaint averments are that:

4. The plaintiff has filed suit before the Civil Judge, Class 1, Baikunthpur, District Koriya for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction, compensation as per market rate for grant of employment to one of his family member as per policy of the SECL and alternatively he has prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interference in the suit property mainly contending that:

A. The plaintiff is the owner of land measuring 2.02 acres in the Sardi Patwari Halka No. 2, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea (hereinafter referred to as suit property). The name of the plaintiff has been recorded as the landowner in the revenue records since long and he is in possession of the suit property. It is also case of the plaintiff that the defendant has illegally constructed the stadium on the suit property though plaintiff has never transferred the said property in favour of defendants nor has given any consent, as such they have no right to construct the stadium over the suit land and due to construction of the said stadium on the disputed land, the plaintiff has been deprived of its possession.

B. It has also been contended that previously Khasra number of the suit land is 223/7 and after new settlement, the land bearing Khasra No. 449 measuring 2.02 hectares has been allotted to the plaintiff. It has been denied that the land is small forest land and the revenue authorities have no right to allot such land to the plaintiff or the Halka Patwari has illegally transferred the suit property and recorded the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records.

C. It is also case of the plaintiff that since the defendants deprived the plaintiff to use the land, therefore, a legal notice was sent to the defendants by registered post on 27/08/2001 asking the defendants to do the valuation of suit property, pay the compensation and also provide employment to one of the family member of the plaintiff. The defendant has promised him, but neither action has been taken nor possession has been given to the plaintiff. It is also case of the plaintiff that the defendant has given reply to the notice contending that the suit land has wrongly been recorded in the name of the plaintiff though it is a Government land. It is also denied that the Additional Collector in Revenue Case No. 24/3/19/95-96 vide order dated 3-1-1996 has canc