Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ.

1 Both these appeals were listed for consideration on the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, CPC), however, considering the fact that these are admitted appeals and the parties were already noticed, with the consent of the parties, both the appeals are being heard and decided together by this common judgment as both the appeals arise out same civil suit and common judgment.

2 FA No.74 of 2024 has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2024 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Suit No.122-A/2014 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants for vacant possession, damages and permanent injunction has been dismissed whereas, FA No.75 of 2024 has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2024 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Suit No.122-A/2014 whereby the counter claim filed by the defendant was partly allowed and a decree for permanent injunction with respect to 4 dismil of land over which the house of defendant No.1 is situated, have been passed and plaintiffs were restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the defendant over the suit land.

3 The facts of the case are one and common which arose from common suit. The appellants were plaintiff before the trial court. They filed a suit for vacant possession, damages and permanent injunction over the suit land Khasra No.356/1 and 357/1 total area 0.324 Hect. (0.80 Acre) situated at village Sasaholi, PH No.7, RI Circle, Tilda, Tehsil Tilda, District Raipur including a hutment constructed over a small portion of the said land. It was the pleading of the plaintiffs that they have purchased the suit property from defendant through registered sale deed dated 15.04.1994 and came into possession of the same. He got it diverted for non agricultural purposes and made an application for its demarcation on 24.06.1997 before the Tehsildar Tilda. On being demarcated it was found that the defendant is in possession of 4 dismil of land on one part of his purchased land which was shown as ABCD part in the sketch map annexed with the plaint. When the plaintiff came to know about the encroachment of defendant over their land, they made an application under Section 250 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short, the Code) for removal of the encroachment of the defendant from the suit land. The said application was filed on 20.05.1999, however, Tehsildar, Tilda rejected their application on 31.05.1999. The plaintiffs filed an appeal before the SDO (Revenue) Tilda against the order dated 31.05.1999. The said appeal was allowed by the SDO Revenue, Tilda on 10.07.2001 after hearing the parties and the order passed by the Tehsildar Tilda was set aside. The defendant challenged the said order of SDO Revenue, Tilda, before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur and the said appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed on 15.04.2009.

4 Challenging the order dated 15.04.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, the defendant filed a revision before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur which was decided on 26.03.2013 and the orders passed by the SDO Revenue, Tilda, and Commissioner Raipur Division were affirmed and the order passed by the Tehsildar, Tilda, Raipur dated 31.05.1999 was set aside. Being dissatisfied with the orders passed by the revenue courts, the defendant filed Writ Petition (227) No.257 of 2013 before the High Court. The said writ petition was decided on 31.03.2014 upholding the order passed by the Tehsildar Tilda dated 31.05.1999 and setting aside the orders passed by the Board of Revenue dated 26.03.2013. It is also pleaded that the High Court in its order dated 31.03.2014 observed that the plaintiffs cannot take recourse to the provisions of Section 250 of the Code and if they want to get vacant possession of their land, they can take rec