2026:CGHC:6910 JYOTI SHARMA AFR JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.02.09 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

17:03:31 +0530 SA No. 125 of 2015 Tek Ram S/o Sukhi Ram Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Dhangaon, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s)

versus

1. Prahlad (Died)

2. Gunaram S/o Kholbahra Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Dhangaon, Tahsil Pamgarh, And District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

3. Derhin (Died)

4. Buliram S/o Shiv Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Dhangaon, Tahsil Pamgarh, And District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

5. Gajaram S/o Shiv Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Dhangaon, Tahsil Pamgarh, And District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

6. Lachchhram S/o Shiv Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dhangaon, Tahsil Pamgarh, And District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

7. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Collector, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board

06.02.2026

1. The plaintiff/ appellant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity CPC) against the judgment & decree dated 20.01.2015 passed by the Learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa in Civil Appeal No. 59-A/2014 (Prahlad & Ors. Vs. Tekram & Anr.) whereby the appeal by the defendants/ Respondents herein has been allowed by reversing the judgment of the Trial Court which was preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2010 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Pamgarh in Civil Suit No. 150-A/2007 (Tek Ram Vs. Prahlad & Ors.) whereby the learned trial Judge has allowed the suit of the plaintiff/ appellant herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.

2. The appeal was admitted by this Court on 28.09.2016 for hearing on the following substantial question of law:-

“ Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in holding that ‘Shikari’ is aboriginal tribe within the meaning of Section 165 (6) of the Chhattisgarh land Revenue Code in Janjgir Tahsil and thereby committed a legal error in reversing the reasoned order finding by the trial Court?”

3. The plaintiff preferred the suit for permanent injunction and in alternative for possession of the suit land pleading inter alia that the suit land was recorded in the revenue records in the names of Ashok Kumar Singh and Manharan Singh, descendants of Satrajit Singh, prior to March 11, 1977. After due verification, the plaintiff purchased the suit land from its previous owners, Manharan Singh and others, through a registered sale deed dated March 11, 1977, for Rs. 1000/- thereby acquiring ownership and possession of the suit land. The plaintiff also had the suit land mutated in his name vide mutation entry no. 303 on May 28, 1977. He has been cultivating the suit land and is still in possession of it. On September 22, 2004, the defendants threatened the plaintiff, stating that they had removed the plaintiff's name from the suit land records and registered their own names, and therefore, the plaintiff should hand over possession of the suit land to them. According to the plaintiff, the defendants also informed him that they had registered their names in the revenue records by claiming themselves to be the members of Scheduled Tribe, though the defendants belong to the Shikari caste, which is not a Scheduled Tribe in Janjgir Tehsil. In such a situation, if they have registered their names in the revenue records by claiming to be members of a Scheduled Tribe, then that order is illegal and without jurisdiction and therefore not binding on the plaintiff. Therefore, a permanent injunction should be issued regarding the suit land, prohibiting the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land, and during pendency of the suit if the defendants are found to be in possession thereof, then the plaintiff be allowed to take possession of