1

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

SA No. 271 of 2013

1. Krishna Bai D/o Kanhaiya Lal Varma Aged About 61 Years R/o Kusmi, P.S.

And Tah. Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur, Now Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara C.G.,

Chhattisgarh

2. Godawari Bai D/o Kanhaiya Lal Varma Aged About 63 Years R/o Kusmi,

P.S. And Tah. Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur, Now Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara

C.G., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

3. Narmada Bai D/o Kanhaiya Lal Varma Aged About 69 Years R/o Kusmi,

P.S. And Tah. Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur, Now Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara

C.G., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

4. Aruna Bai D/o Kanhaiya Lal Varma Aged About 57 Years R/o Kusmi, P.S.

And Tah. Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur, Now Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara C.G.,

District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

---- Appellants

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Thru- Collector, Raipur, Now Baloda Bazar-

Bhatapara, P.S. Civil Line, Baloda Bazar, Tah. And Distt. Raipur, Now

Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara C.G., Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent

For Appellants

: Mr. H. V. Sharma, Advocate

For State

: Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

Order On Board

22.08.2022

1. The instant is a plaintiff’s second appeal. The challenge is to the

judgment and decree dated 22.04.2013 passed by the 2^nd Additional

District Judge Baloda Bazar District Raipur in Civil appeal No. 9-

A/2013.

2. Vide the said judgment and decree, the learned first Appellate Court

has affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated

2

09.01.2008 passed by the Civil Judge Class II Baloda Bazar District

Raipur in Civil Suit No. 100-A/2001.

3. The Trial Court had vide the said judgment rejected the suit for

declaration of title and permanent injunction and also rejected this suit

seeking declaration of the action on the part of the Competent

Authority under the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural holdings

Act 1960 dated 20.07.1983 to be null and void.

4. The brief facts relevant for the adjudication of the instant appeal are

that the appellants/plaintiffs are the legal heirs of one Ram Bai d/o

Ghasiram Kurmi the original plaintiff. The Suit was filed by the

aforementioned Late Ram Bai the Mother of the present

appellants/plaintiffs seeking for declaration of title and injunction

against the respondent so also for declaration of the order of the

Competent Authority, under the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on

Agricultural holdings Act 1960, vesting the subject land with the State

Government to be null and void.

5. The claim of the plaintiffs before the Court below was primarily based

on a registered sale deed executed on 30.09.1963 between Bhagwati

Prasad the original owner of the subject land and the original plaintiff

Ram Bai i.e. the Mother of the present appellants/plaintiffs. The

subject land is, that situates at Khasra No. 866 measuring 10 acres at

village Kusmi Tehsil Baloda Bazar District Raipur (as it then was)

presently under the District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara.

6. The Civil Suit filed by the plaintiffs stood rejected primarily on the

ground that the sale deed executed on 30.09.1963 between Bhagwati

3

Prasad and Ram Bai in respect of the suit property was in

contravention to Section 5 of the aforementioned Act of 1960 as the

vendor in the sale deed had not taken the requisite permission from

the District Collector as is required under Section 5.

7. The further finding of the Court below while rejecting the suit was that

the sale deed was got executed with a mala-fide intention of getting

the said portion of land exempted from the applicability of the Ceiling

Law and with an intention of saving the said land from getting vested

with the State Government.

8. The aforesaid finding in the Civil suit by the Tribunal was affirmed by

the first Appellate Court as well i.e. by the Second Additional District

Judge Baloda Bazar vide the impugned ju