Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 7 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 501 of 2012 Order reserved on 15/10/2024 Order passed on 07/01/2025 • Ashok Pujari (Died) through Legal Heir- Karan Pujari S/o Late Shri Ashok Pujari Aged About 31 Years R/o Pujari Niwas, M.G. Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Chhattisgarh Housing Board Through Its Commissioner, Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. Municipal Corporation Through Commissioner Raipur Chhattisgarh 5. Additional Tahsildar Raipur Chhattisgarh For Petitioner For State/Respondents No. 1,2 and 5 For Respondent No. 3 For Respondent No.4 ... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Anand Shukla and Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate. : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer. :Mr. Sanjay Kumar Patel, Advocate :Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad CAV Order 1. The petitioner has filed this petition against inaction on the part of the respondent authorities specially respondent No.1 by which the case of the petitioner transfer of land under the exchange scheme is 2 / 7 being delayed even after recommendations made by the concerned Collector. The State Government deliberately delaying the matter in respect of transfer of land in exchange of land of the petitioner which has already been taken by the State for the housing scheme as such the petitioner has approach this Court with the following reliefs:- to approval i. To kindly direct the respondent no. 1 to the immediately grant recommendation made by the respondent no. 2 Collector vide letter dated 07/10/2009 (ΑΝNEXURE P/1) and further direct the respondents to complete/ transfer of 1.93 Acres of land vide Khasra No. 331/1 under exchange. ii. To kindly restrain the respondents from removing his boundary wall or any part thereof iii. To kindly restrain the respondents from spoiling his standing crops and from disturbing his peaceful possession. iv. To kindly direct the respondents to hand over the possession of land of the petitioner vide Khasra no. 296 in which the respondent Housing Board has constructed illegal colony if they fail to transfer land through exchange. v. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. vi. To kindly direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner without due process of law. vii. To kindly direct the respondents State to grant compensation with regard for illegal demolition on the land of the petitioner and loss of crops. 2. According to the petitioner he is having land bearing Khasra No. 296 area 1.93 acres situated at village - Purena Tehsil and District – Raipur under Patwari Circle No. 113/45. The records pertaining to year 1942- 1943 goes to show the aforesaid facts in which the name of the grand father of the petitioner namely Ramprasad S/o Charan and Ramsahay, Badri Prasad Pujari were also recorded in the revenue records. The revenue records also goes to show that in these lands have been shown as Shamilat Charagah i.e. general grazing field. The land is a private land which can be shown from the revenue records being Khasra pertaining to year 2005-2006. In the year 2005 the scheme was 3 / 7 floated by the Chhattisgarh Housing Board at village Purena, Raipur by which land bearing Khasra No. 296(Private land) and Khasra No. 331/1 have been illegally allotted by the Collector to C.G. Housing Board in which the land in dispute total area 1.93 acres which was owned by the petitioner also given to the C.G.Housing Board. When the petitioner came to know about the same he made a protest vide its letter dated 23.06.2005 to the Collector and has objected the starting of construction being raised on his land. After several efforts the concerned Collector has called the petitioner as well as the authorities of C.G. Housing Board and during the course of meeting the Collector has accepted that he has taken the land of the petitioner and has allotted to the Housing Board by mistake and the petitioner was assured for compensation or exchange of land in lieu of the land taken from him Khasra No. 331/1 which was accretion to the another land of the petitioner being Khasra No. 362/2, 4 was proposed by the petitioner stating that in exchange the said land will be given to him. 3. The petitioner made several efforts for the said land in exchange of his land allotted to the C.G. Housing Board however, no proceeding has been initiated. The concerned Collector has registered a Revenue case upon the applications made by the petitioner. Probolation was made by the concerned Tehsildar inviting objection in respect of land in question however, no objection was received from any corner. The Tehsildar further called a report from concerned Halka Patwari. The Halka Patwari submitting a report stating that land bearing Khasra No. 296 has been allotted to the C.G. Housing Board despite of the objection raised by the petitioner. In the said revenue proceedings vide order sheet dated 15.06.2006, it has been stated that the petitioner seems to be relative of Pandit Badri Prasad Pujari, ancestor of the petitioner and the owner of the property. After due verification the 4 / 7 petitioner was directed to file a proper family tree and also to file a consent letter so that he may be given a land in-exchange of his land taken by the State and allotted to the C.G. Housing Board thereafter, upon several efforts made by the petitioner ultimately the Collector sent a recommendation vide letter dated 07.10.2009 stating that private lands allotted to the C.G. Housing Board without payment of compensation. In the recommendation it has been recommended that since the land of the petitioner has taken over and has been allotted to the C.G. Housing Board hence, the petitioner is required to be given land in exchange of land which has been taken over by the State. The Collector has further re-commendate that either the land of the petitioner may be acquired and proper compensation be paid to him or in alternative the petitioner may be given land in-exchange of his land taken by the State however, deviating from the recommendations of the Collector now the petitioner is being threaten for removal of his boundary limit by the action of the State Government. The petitioner has filed a writ petition for a direction to the respondent authorities for approval of the recommendation made by the petitioner. 4.Upon notices the respondents have filed their return while denying the contentions of the petition. It has been submitted that the land in question does not belongs to the petitioner and his forefathers. The said land belongs to State which is mentioned in the revenue records as Shamiliat Charagah i.e. common grazing field since it is common grazing field the petitioner can not claim any right and title upon the same land. The recommendation of the Collector was made due to misconception no relief can be granted to the petitioner as he was not the owner of the land. The land has rightly been allotted to the petitioner as the land belongs to the State Government. The respondent C.G. Housing Board has also denied the claim of the petitioner while stating that the land in 5 / 7 dispute is a common grazing field which can not be a private land but it can only be Government land as such the petitioner is not having any right over the said land and due to lack of any locus standi, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. Even if any, right and title was bearing in the revenue record of the ancestor of the petitioner, it seems that their right and title have been extinguished as they have surrendered their rights. The petition has no merits and liable to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Anand Shukla and Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner submits that recommendations were made in favour of the petitioner as such the respondent No.1 is under obligation to initiate proceeding for exchange of land taken from the petitioner there is no dispute regarding ownership and title of the land. The ancestors of the petitioner have only left the land for grazing of cattles but the ownership of the land has never been surrendered at any point of time as such even at the time of allotment of the land to the C.G. Housing Board the revenue records stood in the name of petitioner or his family members when the petitioner has made objections and meeting was conveyed and in the said meeting it was revealed that the land has been allotted to the C.G. Housing Board without there being any consent over information of the petitioner during the course of meeting the Collector has agreed to give land to the petitioner in exchange of the land of the petitioner allotted to the C.G. Housing Board the recommendations made by the Collector is crystal clear which has been made in favour of the petitioner for grant of land in exchange of his land and taken over by the State and allotted to the C.G. Housing board as such necessary direction may be issued for grant of land in support of his contention the petitioner has relied upon judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Patram vs. Gram Panchayat Patwar and Ors reported 6 / 7 in (2020) 15 SCC 56. The petitioner has further relied upon judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and Ors vs. Pukar Jagran Manch and Ors reported in (2011) 2 SCC 591. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner it has been specifically denied that the petitioner and his forefathers were owners of the land in question infact from the revenue record prior to independents it seems that it is a common grazing land recorded in the revenue records which can not be held to be exclusive ownership land once the petitioner is not having ownership and title of the land there is no question of exchange of his land. The Collector has made recommendation which is misconceived and the same can not be relied upon except the revenue record in which the land is shown to be Shamilat Charagaha i.e. common grazing field there is nothing to show ownership and title of the land in question in respect of the petitioner. The petition is devoid of any substance and same is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. From perusal of the records it seems that though in the revenue records name of the forefathers of the petitioner is recorded but the land is shown to be a Shamilat Charagaha which is infact a (common grazing field). After independence the common lands and water resources including ponds were rested in the State and ownership on the most of the lands were taken by the State and these lands were subsequently, owned by the State Government. So far as the recommendation made by the Collector is concerned, only recommendation can not give a right to the petitioner to pray for the exchange of land of the petitioner. The recommendations made by the revenue authorities infavour of the 7 / 7 petitioner has to be verified and thereafter the State Government has to take a decision in accordance with the law. 9. Now so far as the case law cited by the petitioner is concerned the factual matrix of the case seems to be different from the case of the petitioner and it is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. 10. In view of the aforesaid aspect of the case, especially considering the fact that in the revenue records the lands were recorded as Shamilat Charagah, i.e., common grazing field the ownership of the same cannot be held to be individual ownership. Though the names were recorded in the revenue records prior to the independence, after the independence and coming into force the Land Revenue Code, 1959 the grazing land as also the ponds were vested in the State and as such it cannot be held that these lands belong to the petitioner or his forefathers, as such I do not find any case in favour of the petitioner and the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. According, the instant writ petition is dismissed.
Decision
12. No order as to costs. Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.01.07 16:33:31 +0530 vaishali Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge