##PAGE1##

1

Digitally

signed by 2026:CGHC:5734

SIDDHANT

SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR

TAMRAKAR Date:

2026.02.09

16:17:26

+0530

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

SA No. 194 of 2002

1. Sita Bai (Died And Deleted) As Per Hon’ble Court Order Dated 07-11-2025.

2. Ganesh Lal S/o Mohan Lal Agrawal Aged About 50 Years Occupation

Cultivation R/o Khamriya Tehsil Bemetara, Dist. Durg C.G.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Durg C.G.

2. Addl. Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur C.G.

... Respondent(s)

For Appellants/Plaintiffs : Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate along with

Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate

For State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Dy. Advocate General

along with Ms. Anuradha Jain, Dy. Government

Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

31.01 .2026

1. Initially Civil Suit was filed by two plaintiffs, namely, Smt. Sita Bai and

Ganesh Lal. During the pendency of this appeal, Smt. Sita Bai died and her

name was deleted.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs assailing the judgment and

decree passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Bemetara in

Civil Appeal No. 28A/1995 dated 02.01.2002, whereby first appeal

preferred by the plaintiffs was dismissed and judgment & decree passed by

the learned trial Court was affirmed.

3. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. The

2

plaintiffs also challenged the order passed by the Additional commissioner

dated 18.10.1982. The plaintiff pleaded that suit property described in

Schedule - A of the plaint was purchased by the plaintiff No. 1/Smt. Sita Bai

from plaintiff No. 2/Ganesh Lal through registered sale-deed dated

06.04.1972 and 11.07.1972 after payment of full consideration and

possession was also handed over. A ceiling case was registered in the

Court of respondent No. 2 against plaintiff No.2/Ganesh Lal. He filed reply,

wherein stated that land was purchased through registered sale-deed by

plaintiff No. 1. The competent authority declared the suit land surplus

according to the provisions of Chhattisgarh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings

Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as “Act, 1960”) vide order dated 29.10.1979.

The said order was challenged by the appellant herein before the Board of

Revenue. The Board of Revenue allowed the appeal and remitted back the

matter to the competent authority to decide it afresh after affording due

opportunity of hearing vide order dated 12.02.1981. The competent

authority vide order dated 18.10.1982 declared the suit land surplus and

further declared the sale-deed dated 06.04.1972 and 11.07.1972 null and

void. Thereafter, the order dated 18.10.1982 was challenged by the

plaintiffs by filing an appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was

dismissed on merits vide order dated 27.05.1983. The appellants further

pleaded that the order was passed by the competent authority in

contravention to the provisions of Act, 1960. It was also pleaded that the

authority concerned failed to comply with the provisions of Section 11 of the

Act, 1960.

4. The defendants filed written statement and denied the contents made in

the plaint. They pleaded that the subject land was transferred during ban

period. They further pleaded that the competent authority after affording

3

due opportunity of hearing passed order on 29.10.1979. It was also

pleaded that the said order was published in the gazette and final

publication was made on 29.01.1980. A plea was taken that suit was not

filed within prescribed period of limitation of three months from the date of

order passed in appeal or revision, and therefore, suit is not maintainable.

It was also pleaded that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit

as per provisions of Section 46 of the Act, 1960.

5. The learned Trial Court framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter,

suit was dismissed. First appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed.

6. Learned Advocates appearing for the plaintiffs would argue that finding

recorded by the learned Courts below with regard