Back
Digitally signed by RAM E S H 2026:CGHC:261 KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.01.05 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on : 01/12/2025 Judgment Pronounced on : 05/01/2026 FA No. 128 of 2019
1 - Ramanuj Sharma S/o Late Gajanand Sharma Aged About 78 Years R/o Sikola, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg,Chhattisgarh, Through Their General Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Ramanuj Sharma, S/o Late Gajanand Sharma, R/o Village Sikola, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh
2 - Sandeep Sharma S/o Late Ramesh Kumar Sharma Aged About 42 Years R/o Sikola, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through Their General Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Ramanuj Sharma, S/o Late Gajanand Sharma, R/o Village Sikola, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh
3 - Sanjay Sharma S/o Late Ramesh Kumar Sharma Aged About 40 Years R/o Sikola, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through Their General Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Ramanuj Sharma, S/o Late Gajanand Sharma, R/o Village Sikola, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh
4 - Kamlesh Kumar Sharma S/o Late Gajanand Sharma Aged About 65 Years R/o Sikola, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through Their General Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Ramanuj Sharma, S/o Late Gajanand Sharma, R/o Village Sikola, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh
5 - Bhupendra Kumar Sharma S/o Late Gajanand Sharma Aged About 60 Years R/o Sikola, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through Their General Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Ramanuj Sharma, S/o Late Gajanand Sharma, R/o Village Sikola, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh
6 - Naresh Kumar Sharma S/o Late Gajanand Sharma Aged About 62 Years R/o Sikola, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through Their General Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Ramanuj Sharma, S/o Late Gajanand Sharma, R/o Village Sikola, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh
7 - Smt. Dayawati Sharma Wd/o Late Gajanand Sharma Aged About 100 Years R/o Sikola, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through Their General Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Ramanuj Sharma, S/o Late Gajanand Sharma, R/o Village Sikola, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh
8 - Smt. Kaushalya Sharma Wd/o Late Ramnihal Sharma Aged About 63 Years R/o Sikola, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through Their General Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Ramanuj Sharma, S/o Late Gajanand Sharma, R/o Village Sikola, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh
9 - Sitendra Kumar Sharma S/o Late Ramnihaal Sharma Aged About 36 Years R/o Sikola, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through Their General Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Ramanuj Sharma, S/o Late Gajanand Sharma, R/o Village Sikola, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh
10 - Smt. Chetna D/o Late Ramnihaal Sharma Aged About 38 Years R/o Sikola, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through Their General Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Ramanuj Sharma, S/o Late Gajanand Sharma, R/o Village Sikola, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh
11 - Smt. Minita D/o Late Ramnihaal Sharma Aged About 34 Years R/o Sikola, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through Their General Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Ramanuj Sharma, S/o Late Gajanand Sharma, R/o Village Sikola, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh
12 - Smt. Shweta D/o Late Ramnihaal Sharma Aged About 32 Years R/o Sikola, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through Their General Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Ramanuj Sharma, S/o Late Gajanand Sharma, R/o Village Sikola, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants/Plaintiffs Versus
1 - The Municipal Corporation Bhilai Through Its Commissioner, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh
2 - Durg Bhilai Urban Public Transport Society, Through Its Chairman, Chamber No. 21-A, District- Office, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District -Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents/Defendants For Appellants/Plaintiffs : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 / : Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate Defendants No. 1 & 2 assisted by Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 / : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Defendant No. 3 Deputy Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
CAV Judgment
1. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’) has been preferred by the plaintiffs assailing the validity and propriety of judgment and decree dated 24.01.2019 passed by the learned Ist Additional District Court to the Court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Durg, in Civil Suit No. 1236434-A/2015, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.
2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, demolition of illegal construction, possession and permanent injunction, inter alia, on the ground that they are owners of the land bearing Survey No. 294/1 (New Survey No. 294/12) admeasuring 3.566 hectares situated in Village Sikola, Patwari Circle No. 17, Durg and entitled to use and to enjoy the said property. They pleaded that in a proceeding initiated by the Competent Authority under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1976) against late Gajanand Sharma, a final order was passed and 3.566 hectares of land were declared surplus, but late Gajanand Sharma remained in possession of the property. Gajanand Sharma died in the year 1996. It is further pleaded that possession of the property was not taken by the State in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Ceiling Act. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the order passed by the Competent Authority i.e. Additional Collector under the provisions of Act of 1976 was challenged by filing WP No. 3424/1997 and it was disposed of vide order dated 19.10.2010, whereby the plaintiffs were permitted to move an application before the Competent Authority and the said Authority i.e. Additional Collector, Durg was directed to inquire into the matter with regard to possession and decide it in accordance with law. The plaintiffs moved an application on 02.11.2010, and the said Authority passed an order on 28.03.2011, wherein it was held that possession of the suit property was taken by the State on 25.04.1988. The order passed by the Additional Collector- cum-Competent Authority was challenged by filing an appeal, which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur vide order dated 29.10.2011, and the order dated 28.03.2011 passed by the Additional Collector-cum-Competent Authority was set aside. The Appellate Authority passed an order to restore the names of the plaintiffs in the revenue records. They also pleaded that the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 29.10.2011 attained finality as the same has not been modified, or reversed, or set aside by any Superior Authority.
3. The State of Chhattisgarh preferred WP(227) No. 159/2013 before the High Court against the order dated 29.10.2011, and vide order dated 26.02.2013, it was dismissed as withdrawn, reserving liberty in favour of the State to avail the alternative remedy of appeal / revision.
4. Defendant No. 3 / State preferred a revision petition before the State Government, but it was dismissed vide order dated 01.03.2014 on the ground that the State Government had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the revision proceeding.
5. An application was moved by the plaintiffs before the Additional Collector-cum-Competent Authority under the provisions of Section 144 of CPC to enter their names in the revenue records against the suit property pursuant to the order passed by the learned Commissioner dated 29.10.2011, which was pending on the date of filing the civil suit. WP(227) No. 184/2015 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking direction to the authority concerned to decide the pending application filed under Section 144 of CPC expeditiously. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.07.2015 with a direction to the Additional Collector, Durg, to decide the said application within 04 months.
6. The plaintiffs came to know that the defendants had proposed to raise construction on the suit property; therefore, the plaintiff no. 1 moved applications before the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
