2026:CGHC:11330 NAFR Digitally signed by JYOTI J S Y H O A T R I MA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SHARMA Date:

2026.03.13 16:41:50 +0530 SA No. 423 of 2017

1 - Mehattar Ram Sahu S/o Thanwar Sahu, Aged About 52 Years R/o Karaiha, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ......Plaintiff ... Appellant(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

2 - The Tahsildar, Nagri, Prabhari Village Karaiha, P.H.No.5, R.I.C.

Sihawa, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

3 - Parasram Chandrakar, Patwari, Prabhari Village Karaiha, P.H.No. 5, R.I.C. Sihawa, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

4 - Range Officer, Forest Range, Birgudi, Nagri, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh .......Defendants …. Respondent(s)

(Cause title is taken from CIS)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board

10/03/2026

1. The present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/

appellant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 167-A/2011 (Mehttar Ram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), affirming the judgment and decree dated 02.11.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II, District Dhamtari (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 137-A/2009 (Mehttar Ram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), whereby the civil appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

2. The appellant/ plaintiff instituted the suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction pleading inter alia that he has been in possession and cultivating the land situated at Village Karha, bearing old Khasra No. 119/1 and new Khasra No. 535, admeasuring 1.60 hectares, for the last several years. It was pleaded that the said land was originally the property of the State Government and that, on account of the plaintiff’s continuous possession and cultivation for about 35 years, proceedings were initiated before the Revenue Court, pursuant to which the State authorities granted a patta of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff, and his name came to be recorded in the revenue records. It was further pleaded that the defendants, under the Hareli Saheli Scheme of the State Government, started measuring the plaintiff’s land for the purpose of plantation and despite objection by the plaintiff, attempted to forcibly dispossess him from the suit land. According to the plaintiff, he has been in continuous possession of the suit land for the last 35 years and, by virtue of adverse possession, his title over the suit land has been perfected. Accordingly, the plaintiff has sought a declaration that he is the owner of the suit land and also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession.

3. The defendants were granted an opportunity by the Court to file their written statement; however, they failed to do so within the stipulated time. Consequently, no written statement was filed by the defendants.

4. After framing the issues and upon due appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff has failed to establish his claim against the defendants over the suit property. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 02/11/2010, the plaintiff preferred a First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned First Appellate Court. During pendency of the said appeal, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC for taking certain revenue documents on record as the same are necessary for adjudication of the lis. The learned