2024:CGHC:36378 Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Second Appeal No. 336 of 2019  Photu Lal, S/o Late Shri Bodhram, Aged about 55 years, R/o Village Aanchhimar, Police Station Balco, Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.)

---- Appellant/Plaintiff Versus  State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Collector, Korba, District Korba (C.G.)

---- Respondent /Defendant For Appellant/Plaintiff : Mr. H.V. Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/Defendant : Mr. Pramal Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board

18.09.2024 Heard.

1. This appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law on 13.07.2023:-

“a) Whether learned both the Courts below committed error of law in denying the relief to the appellant disbelieving the sale deed dated 11/04/1946 (Ex.-P/1) ignoring the evidence available in this regard.”

2. The appellant/plaintiff has assailed the judgment and decree dated

25.01.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Korba, District Korba (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 04-A/2018, whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 23.02.2018 passed by the learned trial Court was affirmed.

3. The plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of title over Survey No. 215 admeasuring 5 acres, situated at Village Aanchhimar, Patwari Circle No. 09, Tehsil and District Korba, inter alia on the ground that the suit land is recorded as forest land in the revenue records but the suit land was purchased by his father, namely, Bodhram from the then Jamidar/Jagirdar, namely, Aniruddha Pratap Singh before the abolition of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagir Act, 1951 on 11.04.1946 in consideration of Rs.20/-. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff and his father made suit property cultivable. It is further pleaded that on the basis of the sale deed dated 11.04.1946, the name of the plaintiff was recorded in the revenue records. It is pleaded that along with suit land a separate survey no. 29/1 was also recorded in his name in revenue records. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property without any obstruction and thus on the principle of prescription, the plaintiff has become owner of the property. It is also pleaded that the suit property is recorded in the revenue records as forest land, but on the spot, there is no forest. It is further pleaded that on 14.11.2010 a notice was issued to the State Government through the Collector, but no reply was given.

4. The defendant filed a written statement and specifically stated that Survey No. 215 is recorded as forest land (Bade Jhaad Ka Jungle) and the plaintiff never remained in possession. It is alleged that the plaintiff fell down trees situated over the suit land. It is also stated in the written statement that the total area of Survey No. 215 is 40.648 hectares. It is also stated that Gram Van Prabandh Samiti, Aanchhimar had made a complaint against the plaintiff with regard to encroachment over forest land. It is stated that an inquiry was conducted and an agreement was executed by the plaintiff that he would not repeat such act in future.

5. The learned trial Court framed issues and held that the plaintiff is not the owner of Survey No. 215 admeasuring 05 acres; there was a cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and the suit has properly been valued. The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 23.02.2018 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.01.2019.

6. Mr. H.V. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff, would argue that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff through registered sale deed 11.04.1946 (Ex.P/1) in consideration of Rs.20/-. He would further submit that the plaintiff and his father remained in possession since 1946 till the filing of the suit and thus, the plaintiff has perfected his owne