2025:CGHC:58211 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 516 of 2013 Reserved on : 19.08.2025 Delivered on : 01.12.2025

1 - Komal Prasad Sahu S/o Feruram Sahu R/o Pahanda, Tah. Patan, Distt.

Durg C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Bishal Das S/o Ramlal Satnami R/o Pahanda, Tahsil- Patan, District- Durg (C.G.)

2 - State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate.

For Res. No. 1 : Mr. T.R. Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate.

For State/Res. No. 2 : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

CAV JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant No. 1 under Section 100 of the C.P.C. against judgment and decree dated 31.07.2013 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 35-A/2011 (Komal Prasad Sahu Vs. Bishal Das & another) dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.05.2007 passed by the Fourth Civil Judge Class-II, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 60-A/2006 by which the suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status in Civil Suit No. 60-A/2006 before the trial Court.

Digitally signed by ARUN ARUN KUMAR

KUMAR DEWANGAN

DEWANGAN Date:

2025.12.01

17:00:16

+0530

3. The instant Second Appeal has been admitted for hearing by this Court on 26.09.2024 on following substantial questions of law:-

(1) Whether the sale-deed executed in favour of the plaintiff by defendant No. 1 can be said to be void by an order of defendant No. 2 ?

(2) Whether prior to execution of the sale-deed, a permission was necessary from the Collector ?

4. The brief facts, as reflected from the plaint averments are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit on 24.02.1997 for declaring the plaintiff as owner of the suit property and officers of defendant No. 2 be restrained to proceed further against the plaintiff with respect to the suit property mainly contending that:-

(A) The plaintiff has purchased the land situated at Village- Pahanda, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, bearing Khasra No. 10/42, area admeasuring 0.607 Hectare (hereinafter referred to as “suit property”) through registered sale-deed dated 14.06.1989 from defendant No. 1 for cash consideration of Rs. 11,000/- and accordingly, his name was entered in the revenue records and since then he is in possession of the suit property and is cultivating on the suit land but no objection was raised by any authority at that time. Subsequently, the Tahsildar initiated proceedings treating the suit property as government land and started taking action. It is also case of the plaintiff that before initiating any step to remove the plaintiff from the suit land, he should have been suitably compensated by defendant No. 2, as such without following the due procedure of law, defendant No. 2 has no authority to disturb his possession.

(B) It has been further contended that defendant No. 2 had allotted the suit land to defendant No. 1 on lease in Case No. 14-A/19 year 1975- 76 for the years 1975-76 to 1985-86 and according to the said lease, defendant No. 1 has become owner and since then he is in possession of the said land and when defendant No. 1 became owner of the suit land then he sold the land to the plaintiff, therefore, defendant No. 2 has no right to interfere in the suit property. It has been further contended that defendant No. 1 executed a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, defendant No. 2 has no right to raise any dispute regarding the plaintiff’s purchased land. The plaintiff sent a notice on 16.11.1996 to defendant No. 2 through his counsel but no reply was given by defendant No. 2 which has necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit for declaring the plaintiff as bonafide purchaser not encroacher and also owner of the suit property.

5. Defendant No. 1 has filed written statem