TAHSILDAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(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.