RAMKISHUN Vs. NANHKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial questions of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this second appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant No.2 are as under:-

(2.) Plaintiff-Nanhka, defendant No.1-Bhondul and defendant No.2-Ramkishun all are brothers. They applied for grant of patta in the year 1979 by making separate applications of land in their possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was granted patta of plot No.2100/86 area 0.643 hectare of the land (hereinafter called as 'suit land') and defendant No.2 was granted patta of plot No.2586/80 area 0.550 hectare of the land, whereas defendant No.1 was not granted patta of the land as he was not landless person as he was having more than 5 acres of land. It is further case of the plaintiff that after grant of patta he was also granted bhumiswami right on 29.7.86 vide Ex.P-1 and also granted rin pustika vide Ex.P-2, but thereafter defendants No.1 and 2 made an application before the Forest Settlement Officer that their names also be inserted in the said patta as owner of the suit land as they are in joint possession, in which the Forest Settlement Officer on 6.1.86 (Ex.D-8) directed for insertion of names of defendants No.1 and 2 along with the plaintiff, which the plaintiff challenged by way of appeal before the Collector, which was dismissed by the Collector on 22.7.1987 (Ex.D-9), against which, the plaintiff preferred revision before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur. The Commissioner dismissed the revision on 13.8.1983 (Ex.D-10) having no jurisdiction holding that appeal would lie to the State Government. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaring the order dated 6.1.86 passed by the Forest Settlement Officer as well as the order dated 22.7.1987 passed by the Collector, Surguja (Ambikapur) as null and void and also claiming permanent injunction against defendants No.1 and 2.

(3.) Resisting the suit, defendants NO.1 and 2 filed their joint written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint stating inter-alia that patta of the suit land was jointly granted in favour of all three brothers, but patta was issued only in favour of the plaintiff during settlement and they are jointly cultivating the suit land and therefore, their names have rightly been inserted in the said patta by order of the Forest Settlement Officer, which has been affirmed by the Collector as well as the Commissioner also. The plaintiff has no exclusive right and title over the suit land, as such, the suit deserves to be dismissed.