TIRITH RAM vs SMT. SUSHILA BAI

1

CGHC010151822022
NAFR
Digitally signed
by INDRAJEET
SAHU
Date: 2026.10.30
17:06:53 +0530
INDRAJEET
SAHU
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 277 of 2022
1 - Tirith Ram S/o Nanuha Aged About 66 Years Resident of Challan, Post
Office Nirjaam, Tehsil & District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - Smt. Sushila Bai W/o Bhanu Satnami Aged About 41 Years Resident of
Gajiya Nawagaon, Tehsil and District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
2 - Bhanu Koshley S/o Jhumuk Lal Koshley Aged About 46 Years Resident of
Gajiya Nawagaon, Tehsil and District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
3 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Mungeli District Mungeli
Chhattisgarh.
4 - Smt. Sahodra Bai W/o Krishna Kumar Aged About 36 Years Caste
Satnami, Resident of Village Gajiya Nawagaon, Tehsil and District Mungeli
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Ms. Binu Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondents 1&2 : Shri Vishwanath Prasad Shrivas,
Advocate.
For State : Shri Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent No.4 : None though served.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Order on Board
30.10.2026
1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated

2
13.04.2022 passed by Additional District Judge, Mungeli in Misc. Civil
Appeal No.02/2019, whereby the Misc. Appeal of the petitioner has
been dismissed and the order dated 04.12.2018 passed by IInd Civil
Judge, Class-I, Mungeli, in Civil Suit No.S-9A of 2017 has been
affirmed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is the
plaintiff before the trial court where he filed a suit for declaration of title
and permanent injunction with respect to suit property by claiming that
he purchased the suit land bearing Khasra No.3/4, Area 1.38 Acre
through registered sale deed and is in possession of the same. The
suit land was acquired by the State Govt. for construction of Bilaspur-
Mungeli-Pandariya bypass road and award was passed by the
defendant No.3 in the year, 2016 by determining its compensation.
Though plaintiff was title holder of 53 dismil of land which was acquired
out of total purchased land by the plaintiff, but compensation was
determined in the name of defendant No.1-Sushila Bai on the basis of
entries made in the revenue record. Since the petitioner was in
possession of the suit property by virtue of registered sale deed, he is
entitled for compensation of the acquired land for which he filed the
suit.
3. In the suit, the defendant No.1 filed a counter claim for permanent
injunction with respect to disbursement of compensation to the plaintiff.
Along with counter claim, the defendant No.1 filed an application under
Order 39 Rule 1&2 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction with the
averment that defendant No.1 had purchased the land of Khasra
No.1/1 from Sneha Kesharwani and is in possession of the same. She

3
purchased the suit land through registered sale deed dated 31.03.2010
admeasuring 3.53 Acre, out of which 53 dismil of land is being acquired
by the State Govt. therefore, she is entitled for its compensation. The
trial court, after hearing the parties, rejected the application filed by the
defendant No.1 vide its order dated 04.12.2018 holding that prima facie
case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss is not found in
favour of defendant No.1, however, the trial court observed in its order
that both the parties i.e. plaintiff and defendants No.1&4 are in
possession of the subject land and cultivating the same. Being
aggrieved by the said order dated 04.12.2018 and observations made
by the trial court that both the parties are in possession of the suit
property, they (both the parties) separately filed their appeals before Ist
Additional District Judge, Mungeli. The petitioner filed Misc. Appeal
No.02/2019 whereas the respondent No.1 filed Misc. Appeal
No.03/2019. After hearing the parties, both the appeals were dismissed
by the trial court vide its order dated 13.04.2022 against which the
petitioner has filed the present writ petition, however, the respondent
No.1 has not challenged dismissal of her appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that dispute between
the parties is with respect to disbursement of compensation amount
which is determined in lieu of acquisition of land. Since both the parties
are claiming their title over the subject part of the land which was
acquired by the State Govt., the dispute appears to be factual in nature
which requires evidence of the parties, and therefore, in the facts that
suit is pending since 2019, instead of deciding the present writ petition

4
on merits, the trial court may be directed to expedite the proceeding of
Civil Suit and to decide the same within stipulated time period.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that he has no
objection if such a direction is being given to the trial court to decide
the suit expeditiously in accordance with law after providing proper
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents
annexed with the petition.
7. From perusal of impugned order passed by the Trial Court as well as
appellate court, it transpires that the main dispute between the parties
are with respect to disbursement of the compensation and its
apportionment for the land acquired by the State Govt. Both the parties
are raising their rival claim that they have purchased the subject
property which has been acquired by the State Govt., therefore, they
are entitled for compensation. Title of parties, their possession and
entitlement of compensation are all disputed questions of fact, to be
decided after recording evidence of the parties concerned.
8. As has been claimed by both the parties that instead of deciding the
present petition on merit, the trial court may be directed to decide the
suit as early as possible, this court deem it appropriate to dispose of
the present writ petition directing the trial court to expedite the
proceeding of Civil Suit No.S-9A/2017 and to conclude the same as
early as possible.
9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. The trial court is
directed to expedite the proceeding of Civil Suit No.S-9A/2017 and to
conclude the same as early as possible preferably within a period of

5
eight months from the date of receipt of copy of this order after
providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, in
accordance with law on its own merit. It is expected that the parties
shall cooperate for expeditious disposal of the suit and shall not take
any unnecessary adjournments in the proceeding.
10. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Interim order dated
11.05.2022 is vacated.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
inder