1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken up through video conferencing.
2. Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in second appeal preferred by the appellants / plaintiffs.
3. By the impugned judgment, the first appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs affirming the judgment and
decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
4. Mr. Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, submits that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent
injunction stating interÂalia that he is in possession over the suit land prior to coming into force of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for
brevity “the Code, 1959â€) w.e.f. 02.10.1959 and, as such, he became title holder of the suit land by virtue of Section 246 of the the Code, 1959.
He further submits that the plaintiff has perfected his title by way of adverse possession, but both the Courts below have dismissed the suit by
recording a finding which is perverse to the record, therefore, appeal deserves to be admitted by formulating the substantial question of law for
determination of this second appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and perused the records.
6. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction stating inter alia that he is in possession over the suit land prior to coming
into force of the Code, 1959 and, as such, he became title holder of the suit land by virtue of Section 246 of the Code, 1959 and alternatively, he
pleaded that he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession, whereas the case of the defendants is that the suit property has already been
acquired by the Compensation Officer, Durg, in Compensation Case No.154/IÂAÂ4/1950Â51 [State vs. Shyamlal) and compensation has been paid
to Shri Abhay Singh S/o Shri Pilasao, head of their family, therefore, suit is liable to be dismissed.
7. Two Courts below have concurrently recorded the findings that the suit land has been acquired by the State Government in the matter of State vs.
Shyamlal and title has been vested with State Government and compensation has been paid to the head of the family i.e. Shri Abhay Singh S/o Shri
Pilasao, by order of Compensation Officer and that order has become final, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief in the instant suit.
8. The aboveÂstated findings are the finding of fact based on oral and documentary evidence available on the record. Once the plaintiff has lost his
title over the suit land after accepting the compensation, he cannot again assert title and get a decree for declaration of title in his favour. I do not find
any substantial question of law for admission of this second appeal.
9. Accordingly, the instant second appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed in limine without notice to other side. No cost(s).
