Order On Board

20/07/2023

1.

This appeal is arising out of judgment and decree dated 29/03/2001 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Raipur, CG in Civil Suit No.2A of 96 by which the suit filed by the plaintiff was allowed and decree of declaration of title of the suit property was granted and the defendants were restrained from interfering with the possession of the suit property.

The parties are referred to their original status in the trial Court.

2.

The suit, in nutshell, is that the disputed property is a house situated in village – Beltukri, for which suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed. The case of the plaintiff before the learned trial Court was that the disputed house is the ancestral house of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff encroached upon some land adjacent to the house in which revenue proceedings were carried out and vide order dated 13/07/1970, the same was given to father of the plaintiff. After the death of the father, the descendants are the owner and title holder of the suit house. As per pleading of the plaint, defendants 2 to 5 are the Government officers of defendant No.1 and being influenced by defendants 6 to 13, they have passed illegal orders. Defendants 6 to 13 are relatives and defendants 6 to 8 are also in Government service. The house of defendant No.9 is adjacent to the disputed house. Defendant No.6 Premlal is the son of defendant No.9 Parasram. Defendant No.6, with malafide intention and taking advantage of being a Government employee registered a case with regard to encroachment of the disputed house, upon which, defendant No.4 on 30/06/1996 passed an illegal order. Against such order, the plaintiff filed an appeal before defendant No.3 which was registered as 62 - B/21 year 93-94 and the stay order was passed on the order passed by defendant No.4. According to the plaint, thereafter, defendant No.3 without giving any notice to the plaintiff on the application of defendant No.6, dismissed the stay order vide order dated 05/08/94. On the date of hearing, when the plaintiff appeared, he came to know about the dismissal of the stay order. The plaintiff requested to maintain the status quo on the suit land. Defendant No.3 did not proceed on such request. Thereafter, the said case was sent to defendant No.2/Additional Commissioner. As per further pleadings of the plaint, defendant no.9, in order to cancel the lease deed against order dated 13/07/1970 filed a revision after many years. The revision of defendant no.9 was dismissed but without any enquiry, “nikasi rasta” was mentioned whereas according to the plaint, there was no way on the spot. Thereafter, the defendants by hatching conspiracy in absence of the plaintiff on 27/08/1994 demolished some portion of his house. At the time of demolition of the house, defendants 6 to 13 were personally present. Because of the demolition, the plaintiff suffered damage of Rs.50,000/-. Further case of the plaintiff is that order dated 31/05/94 passed in Revenue case No.305-A/68/93-94 and order dated 30/06/1994 passed in Revenue case No.120-B-121/93- 94 is null and void which not binding upon the plaintiff and on the basis of illegal order, the defendants had no right for ejectment of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed for declaration of title and permanent injunction with regard to the disputed suit house and also claimed for award of Rs.50,000/-.

3.

The defendants 6 and 9 filed a joint written statement. Defendants 7 and 11 also filed a joint written statement. Defendants 8 and 12 filed separate joint written statement and remaining defendants did not file any written statement. Defendants 6 and 9 in their written statement stated that there was 5 feet public lane between their house and house of the plaintiff. This lane was being used for water drainage and public purpose. There was 18.6 ft x 22 ft open land adjacent to the house of the plaintiff which was for the public use. The plaintiff tried to encroach upon 8 ft x10 ft