2025:CGHC:49006 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 236 of 2019 Haricharan S/o Puran Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Porda Tehsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh .. Appellant (s)

versus

1 - Govind S/o Baratram Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Hirapur, Tehsil Lailunga District Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff No.1)

2 - Sunkirtan S/o Baratram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Hirapur Tehsil Lailunga District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff No. -2)

3 - Kaushalya, Wd/o Buturam @ Santram Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Porda, Tehsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

(Defendant No. -2)

4 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 3)

... Respondent(s)

__________________________________________________________

For Appellant (s) : Ms. Aditi Joshi, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate For Resp No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Sandeep Patel, Advocate For State/Resp No.4 : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer _______________________________________________________

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA 24/09/2025 Date:

2025.10.14

11:09:14 +0530 1. This second appeal is filed by appellant/defendant challenging impugned judgment and decree dated 15.02.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No.05/2018 by learned Additional District Judge, Gharghoda, District- Raigarh whereby learned first appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court and has remitted the case back for trial.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would submit that after receipt of notice of suit filed by respondents No. 1 & 2/plaintiffs seeking relief for declaration of title and possession of the land bearing kh. No.263/2, 278/1 admeasuring 0.210 hectare and 0.202 hectare respectively, defendants have submitted an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that land subject matter of civil suit has already been acquired by South Eastern Coalfield Limited (SECL) and therefore dispute if any with regard to title over the property subject matter of acquisition under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (for short “Act of 1957”) would be considered only by the competent authority and not by jurisdictional civil Court as envisaged under Section 26 of the Act of 1957. Learned trial Court upon appreciation of grounds pleaded in the application and the pleadings made in the plaint has rejected the suit under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC which was upon proper appreciation of facts and law applicable to the case. She submits that learned first appellate Court erroneously, taking note of Section 14 (2) of the Act of 1957, came to conclusion that Central Govt. has not authorized any person or authority to decide the claim of title. She also contended that impugned judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate Court is contrary to law and hence it be set aside.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2/plaintiffs would submit that learned trial Court has dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC. According to wordings made in the provision under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC, for considering whether civil suit filed is barred by any law, contents of plaint/pleading made in the plaint only are to be taken into consideration. Court is not required to consider any other document as an evidence for dismissing the suit under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC. In support of his contention he places reliance upon the decision in the case of Chhotanben and Anr. Vs.

Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and Ors. (2018) 6 SCC 422.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of trial Court.

5. Perusal of the plaint would show that plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 & 2 in plaint has pleaded that out of three khasra numbers i.e. 263/2, 278/1 and 282/2, only kh. no. 282/2 was acquired by SECL. There is no pleading that other khasra numbers on which reli