2026:CGHC:7704 RJAATGHVENDRADsRJA iA igg T nG iteH adl V by EyNDRA NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 147 of 2025

1 - Kailash Chouhan S/o Late Shri Adalat Chouhan Aged About 51 Years Through- Power Of Attorney Holder Smt. Kedalti Chouhan, W/o Kailash Chouhan Aged About 49 Years, R/o Nehru Road, Near Adalt Saw Mill, Supela, Bhilai, Dist- Durg ( C.G. ).

2 - Sanjay Chouhan S/o Late Shri Adalat Chouhan Aged About 47 Years R/o Nehru Road, Near Adalt Saw Mill, Supela, Bhilai, Dist- Durg ( C.G. ).

3 - Naresh Chouhan S/o Late Shri Adalat Chouhan Aged About 61 Years R/o Nehru Road, Near Adalt Saw Mill, Supela, Bhilai, Dist- Durg ( C.G. )

... Applicant(s)

versus

1 - Ganesh Chouhan S/o Late Shri Adalat Chouhan Aged About 56 Years R/o Beisde Kamla Medical, Supela, P.S. Supela, Dist- Durg ( C.G.

).

... Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

11/02/2026

1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following reliefs:-

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the order dated 22.04.2025 passed by learned Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 18-A/2021, in the interest of justice.”

2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the plaintiff–respondent has instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property situated at Supela, South Gangotri, D- Block, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.), admeasuring 60 x 82 + 85/2 sq. ft., out of which he has constructed a shop measuring 12 x 15 sq. ft. (180 sq. ft.), the detailed description of which is mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint. It is pleaded that the property was earlier within the jurisdiction of the Special Area Development Authority (SADA) and is presently within the limits of the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai; that in the year 1986 SADA divided the area into four blocks, namely A, B, C and D, and allotted plots to various persons for business purposes, and the suit land was allotted to the plaintiff, with electricity connection issued in his name. It is further stated that vide Letter No. 908 dated 09.06.1992 SADA proposed issuance of patta in favour of possession holders, but as no decision was taken, the plaintiff filed WPC No. 1120/2018 seeking compliance of the earlier decision, which was disposed of on 04.05.2018; however, despite the said order, the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai failed to issue patta in his favour. The plaintiff contends that during survey proceedings his name was recorded as possession holder, though the defendants’ names were wrongly included in the survey list; demarcation also confirmed his possession, and the Corporation issued him an ID for payment of property tax. The plaintiff asserts that he has been in possession since 1992, is the sole possession holder, and had let out a portion of the property to Gauhar Ali in 2012 at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,500/-, but in 2020 the said tenant stopped paying rent and claimed possession, leading to a complaint. It is alleged that the defendants are unlawfully disputing his possession and attempting to mutate their names in municipal records without any legal right, compelling him to file the present suit for declaration of his status as sole possession holder and for permanent injunction restraining interference. Upon service of notice, the defendants appeared and filed a joint written statement denying the plaint averments, contending that their father, Adalat Chouhan, had been running business on the suit property since 1964; after establishment of SADA, the land was allotted to him based on his prior possession, and after his death the names of both plaintiff and defendants were jointly recorded in municipal and survey records; they further assert that the land was partitioned during the lifetime of Adalat Chouhan and the parties are in separate possession of their