NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 11.03.2024 Judgment delivered on : 12 .06.2024 Second Appeal No. 536 of 2013

1. Kunji Ram S/o Late Shri Kanhya Satnami, aged about 40 years, 2. Shyam Bihari (Died) Through LRs (i) Smt. Manjula Kurre W/o Late Shyam Bihari, aged about 45 years, R/o Village-Samarupara, Pandariya, Tah. & PS Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham (CG)

(ii) Gyanendra Kurre S/o Late Shyam Bihari, aged about 26 years, R/o Village-Samarupara, Pandariya, Tah. & PS Pandariya, Distt.

Kabirdham (CG)

(iii) Jyoti Kurre D/o Late Shyam Bihari, aged about 23 years, R/o Village-Samarupara, Pandariya, Tah. & PS Pandariya, Distt.

Kabirdham (CG)

(iv) Kunal Kurre S/o Late Shyam Bihari, aged about 26 years, R/o Village-Samarupara, Pandariya, Tah. & PS Pandariya, Distt.

Kabirdham (CG)

---- Appellants/plaintiffs Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Kabirdham, Distt.

Kabirdham (CG)

---- Respondent/Defendant For Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Ratan Pusty, Govt. Adv.

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

CAV JUDGMENT

The appellants/plaintiffs have filed this appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short “CPC”) challenging the judgment and decree dated 1.10.2013 passed by Additional District Judge (FTC), Kabirdham in Civil Appeal No.11-A/2013 dismissing the appeal arising out of the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2012 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Pandariya in Civil Suit No.09-A/2012 whereby the suit was dismissed with cost.

02. The admitted facts in this case are that in the year 1963 the land bearing Khasra No.586/11, area 4.00 hectare was merged with the State of Chhattisgarh as per the Ceiling Act (MP/CG Krishi Khato Ki Adhiktam Seema Adhiniyam 1960) and since then it is recorded in the name of State of Chhattisgarh.

03. Case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the land situated at Samarupara, Pandariya bearing Khasra No.586/11, area 4.00 acre was purchased by Bisnu, s/o Samaru and Kanhaiya, s/o Samaru on 1.10.1959 from Indrakumari Devi through registered sale deed and after the death of Bisnu, the deceased plaintiffs and their legal heirs were jointly in possession thereof. The deceased plaintiffs after purchase of the said land had given the registered sale deed to the concerned Patwari for amendment in the revenue records accordingly but their names were not recorded inadvertently. However, in the year 1963 the said land was recorded in the name of State in the revenue records under the Ceiling Act without affording any opportunity of hearing to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs came to know about it when the defendant/State asked them to vacate the land for construction of school. Thereafter, the plaintiffs moved an application before the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Pandariya, for recording the said land in their names, however, their application was rejected on 5.1.2012 on the ground that the dispute relates to title. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

04. The defendant though appeared after service of summons but later on remained absent, hence it was proceeded ex-parte. No written statement was filed by the defendant.

05. Learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings, framed three issues and upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record found that the plaintiffs have not been in possession of the disputed land and the dispute with respect to the land being related to title under the Ceiling Act, the civil Court has no jurisdiction, hence the plaintiffs are not entitled for any permanent injunction. Accordingly, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2012 dismissed the suit with cost. The plaintiffs challenged the said judgment and decree before the Additional District Judge, Kabirdham in appeal, however, the learned appellate Court also dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment and decree dated 1.10.2013. Hence the present second appeal.

06. Learned counsel fo