CAV Judgment

1. Appellants/Plaintiffs have challenged the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.08.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Appeal No.18-A/2003 whereby learned First Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by respondents/defendants and set aside judgment and decree dated 06.08.2003 passed by learned trial Court in Civil Suit No.222-A/2002.

2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that one Ravi Kumar was owner of land bearing Khasra Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6/1, 6/3, 6/4, 37 & 131/3 measuring 0.38, 0.38, 0.38, 1.57, 0.49, 0.50, 0.50, 0.31 & 2 acres total land measuring 8.86 acres at village Bharni, Takhatpur, district Bilaspur. This land of Ravi Kumar was alleged to be in possession of respondent/defendant-2 in which some plantation of Sheeshal seeds was done by respondent-2. When even after request of Ravi Kumar, respondent/defendant-2 did not vacate the land illegally possessed by them, then, Ravi Kumar made an application before the Additional Collector, Bilaspur for exchange of his land with land recorded in the name of respondent/defendant-2, but lying vacant.

3. After receiving an application, the Additional Collector, Bilaspur, conducted an inquiry and found that about 5.08 acres of land owned by Ravi Kumar of different Khasra numbers was illegally possessed by respondent-2 and therefore, decided to invoke his powers as provided under Part-4-No.3, paragraph 20 of the Revenue Book Circular for giving the same area of land under exchange to Ravi Kumar. Additional Collector vide his order dated 06.07.1999 allowed the application of Ravi Kumar and allotted land admeasuring 5.08 acres from Khasra No.71/2, measuring 9.05 acres recorded in the name of respondent/defendant-2. It was also directed to Tahsildar to initiate demarcation proceedings in pursuance of order, correct the records and to handover possession of the allotted land to Ravi Kumar. The order of Additional Collector was challenged by respondent/defendant-2 before the Commissioner by way of appeal but the same was dismissed.

4. Tahsildar in pursuance of the order passed by the Additional Collector, conducted demarcation and also apportioned the land in Revenue Map. Action of the Tahsildar for apportioning the part of Khasra No.71/2 in Revenue Map and the construction raised by appellant/plaintiff was reported by defendant-2 to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO). The SDO after recording statements of Revenue Officers, passed an order on 29.10.2001 and set aside the correction of Revenue Map of Khasra No.71/2 and further directed that the correction of Revenue Map be done in accordance with approved map in the order of Additional Collector dated 06.07.1999 and also to remove possession of the appellant from said land. This order of SDO made the appellant/plaintiff to approach the Civil Court by way of filing a Civil Suit for declaration of title over the land measuring 5.08 acres situated at Khasra No.71/2(kha) and for permanent injunction and for restraining respondents/defendants to interfere with peaceful possession and not to damage the boundary of barbed wire over the disputed land.

5. The pleadings made in the plaint by the appellant/plaintiff are that the appellant/plaintiff had purchased the property in dispute from Ravi Kumar vide registered sale deed dated 20.08.2001 and since then, he is owner of the property in dispute and also in possession of the same. It was also pleaded that prior to the sale deed, Ravi Kumar was owner and in possession of the property in dispute. It has been pleaded that Ravi Kumar became owner of the property by virtue of order passed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur, wherein the Additional Collector ordered for allotment of 5.08 acres of land out of total 9.05 acres of land of Khasra No.71/2 (kha) and in pursuance of the order, Tahsildar got demarcated and also corrected the Revenue Map accordingly. After purchasing the land, the appellant/plaintiff came to know that on 01.11.2001 defendant-1 had pa