News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 115 | 2026:CGHC:6814-DB
February 06, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a first appeal challenging the rejection of a decades-old land ownership claim, affirming that the plaintiff failed to prove either valid title or possession over the disputed agricultural land in Balodabazar-Bhatapara district.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad upheld the 2019 judgment of the Additional District Judge, Bhatapara, which had dismissed the civil suit filed by the plaintiff and allowed the counterclaim of the original landholder.
The dispute revolved around 15.95 acres of land at Mauja Dhurrabandha, which the plaintiff claimed to have purchased in March 1972 for Rs. 1,200 through a registered sale deed. The plaintiff asserted that possession was delivered at the time of sale but admitted that no mutation was sought in revenue records for over three decades.
The original landowner, Ramnaini Bai, denied executing any such sale deed and contended that she remained in continuous possession of the land. She later sold the property to another woman through a registered sale deed in October 2011. The plaintiff challenged this subsequent transaction as illegal and void.
After examining oral testimony, revenue records, and documentary evidence, the High Court noted that the plaintiff had not produced any proof of possession from 1972 to 2011. The Court also highlighted the plaintiff’s own admissions that no revenue entries, agricultural records, electricity connections, or irrigation facilities were ever established in his name.
The Bench observed that revenue records consistently showed the land in the name of the original owner and that the subsequent purchaser had demonstrated active possession through cultivation, borewell installation, and electricity bills.
Importantly, the Court held that the plaintiff’s suit was legally flawed because it sought only a declaration of title without seeking recovery of possession, despite clear evidence that he was not in possession of the land. Such a suit, the Court said, is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
Rejecting the argument that the counterclaim was barred by limitation, the Court ruled that the original owner filed it promptly after the plaintiff initiated litigation and after consistently objecting to mutation proceedings.
Finding no perversity or legal error in the trial court’s reasoning, the High Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish ownership or possession, while the defendants successfully proved both. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the trial court’s decree was affirmed.
