Digitally signed YOGESH by YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2025.12.11

2025:CGHC:59827 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 556 of 2013 Bachhu Ram, aged about 57 years, S/o Late Dewar Gond, R/o Village Badwar (Kanak Nagar), P.S. and Tahsil Pratappur, Civil and Revenue District Surajpur C.G.

... Appellant versus

1 – Budhia, aged about 67 years, D/o Thaula Caste Bargah, R/o Village Badwar (Kanak Nagar), P.S. and Tahsil Pratappur, Civil and Revenue District Surjapur (C.G.).

2 - State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector, Surguja, Place-

Ambikapur, (C.G.).

... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Mehta and Mr.

Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Advocates For Respondent No.1 : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board

09.12.2025

1. The second appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pratappur, District Surajpur, (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 26-

A/2012, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 50-A/2011, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court have been affirmed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff had instituted the civil suit seeking declaration of his title over the suit land admeasuring 3.89 hectares, situated at Village Badwar alias Kanak Nagar, P.H. No. 13, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur. It was pleaded that the father of the plaintiff, Dewar Gond, had originally acquired 9.74 acres in the Surguja State Survey Settlement, which, upon completion of the settlement proceedings, was renumbered and described in Schedule “A” appended to the plaint. The father of the plaintiff died in the year 1962, and thereafter, the father of defendant/respondent No. 1, namely Thaula, entered upon the suit lands under an arrangement of “Adhia” with the permission of the plaintiff’s mother.

3. It was further pleaded that around the year 1993, upon the death of said Thaula, defendant No. 1 stopped giving the agreed half share of the crop and denied the relationship of Adhia. On enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the name of Thaula had been mutated in the revenue records over the suit lands fraudulently, and after his death, the name of defendant No. 1 was also mutated. An application for mutation filed by the plaintiff before the Tahsildar, Pratappur, was rejected on 07.03.1994.

4. The plaintiff further pleaded that he had thereafter filed an application under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pratappur (for short ‘SDO’), seeking reversion of the land, which was allowed on 30.07.2001, and his name was mutated accordingly. However, the appeal preferred by defendant No. 1 was allowed by the Collector, Surguja, on 11.03.2002, remanding the matter to the SDO for fresh consideration. Subsequently, by order dated 23.01.2004, the SDO rejected the plaintiff’s application, compelling him to file the civil suit.

5. Defendant No. 1 filed her written statement denying the plaint allegations and pleaded that the suit lands were acquired and possessed by her father, Thaula, during his lifetime, and that the entries made in the name of Dewar Gond during settlement were illegal. She contended that after the death of her father, she inherited the property and had her name mutated in the year 1990. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff was aware that the land was recorded in the name of her father as early as 1954–55, and therefore, the suit was barred by limitation. Objections regarding valuation and court fee were also raised.

6. Defendant No. 1 further filed a counter-claim, asserting that neither the plaintiff nor his father was ever in possession of the suit