Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.01.30 11:47:48 +0530 2025:CGHC:2592 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1680 of 2017 1. Ghanshyam (Died) Through Legal Heirs As Per The Honble Court Order Dated 11-04-2022.
Legal Reasoning
of this Court in WPS No. 7048 of 2007 (Gambhir Das Panika vs. Chairman, Board of Revenue and Ors) in paragraphs No.1,2, 29, 40, 41 and 42 has held as under:- 1. "Whether a Kotwar (village servant) holding service land under Section 183(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 can be granted bhumiswami right over such service land in view of the provision contained in Section 183(2) of the Code as held in Chhabil Das W.R No. 2632 of 2000 (decided on 30-10-2001) (supra) and Tikaram W.P. No. 2064 of 2000 (decided on 3-5-2001) (supra)?" 2. The learned single Judge has referred the aforesaid question for decision upon noticing that the decision rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Pahup Singh v. Haridas, 1977 RN 467 followed by this Court in Kamini Kumar v. Bhaudas, AIR 2017 (NOC) 206 (Chh) has not been considered in two subsequent cases in the matters of Tikaram v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 2064 of 2000 (decided on 3-5-2001) and 4 Chhabil Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 2632 of 2000 (decided on 30-10- 2001) while granting bhumiswami rights to the Kotwar on the land possessed by them. In Pahup Singh (supra) the single Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh speaking through Hon'ble Shri G.P. Singh, J., (as His Lordship then was) held that transfer of service land by Kotwar is void, therefore, transferee cannot claim any right on land on the basis of such transfer. The ratio laid down in Pahup Singh (supra) was followed by this Court in Kamini Kumar, (AIR 2017 (NOC) 206 (Chh) (supra). 29. It appears at the time of hearing of Chhabil Das (supra), Tikaram (supra) and Lalla Singh Chouhan, (ILR 2018 Chh 626) (supra), the decisions rendered by this Court in Smt. (supra), Gopal Agrawal, (ILR Rina Bai 2018 Chh 728) (supra); the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gaurishankar Choubey (supra) and that of the Supreme Court in Kanak Chandra Dutta, (AIR 1967 SC 884) (supra) and Pravir Chandra Bhanj Deo Kakatiya, (AIR 1953 Nagpur 86) (supra) were not placed be fore the concerned Benches and had, thus, escaped the attention of the Court. Therefore, the law laid down by this Court in Chhabil Das (supra), Tikaram (supra) and Lalla Singh Chouhan (supra), are per incuriam. 40.A conjoint reading of the provisions contained in Sections 145 to 150 of the MPLRC, 1954 makes it apparent that a person holding service land as a Kotwa through the proprietor or malguzar free of land revenue can never become a bhumidhari, as he never held the land as occupancy tenant in the Mahakushal Region or as raiyat or raiyat sarkar or a tenant either in the Mahakushal Region or merged territories, therefore, the status of Kotwar vis-a-vis the service land remain a grant from the proprietor in lieu of services rendered to the malguzar or village. 41. If the petitioners' forefathers became bhumidhari under the MPLRC, 1954 there is absolutely no reason why their forefathers or after their demise the present petitioners did not move application for conferral of bhumiswami rights under Section 150 of the 5 MPLRC, 1954 or the CGLRC, 1959 for last about seven decades. There is no proof that the petitioners or their forefathers had ever paid the land revenue under Section 148 of the MPLRC, 1954. As a matter of fact, this provision by itself exposes the fallacy in the petitioners' argument because a bhumidhari is required to pay the same land revenue, which he was paying in respect of lands held by him and the same rent if he was paying rent in respect of lands held by him. It is the petitioners' own case and it is the case of all Kotwars who were enjoying service land before coming into force the CGLRC, 1959 that they were exempted from payment of land revenue. 42. For all the above stated reasons, we are of the considered view that Lalla Singh Chouhan, (ILR 2018 Chh 626) (supra) has not laid down the correct law and the finding that lands held by Ex-Kotwars as a grant from malguzar would be saved to them as bhumiswami is erroneous particularly in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Abolition Act, 1950 read with Sections 147, 148 and 150 of the the MPLRC, orders/judgments in the matters of Chhabil Das (supra), Tikaram (supra) and Lalla Singh Chouhan (supra) stand overruled. The question referred for decision is answered accordingly. Resultantly, 1954. land 5. In light of judgment the passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Gambhir Das Panika (supra) I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. 6. Accordingly, instant petition liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.
Arguments
1.1 - Sumeshwar Lal Mithilesh S/o Late Shri Ghanshyam Aged About 52 Years Resident Of Village Sanaud Tahsil Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Circuit Court, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Commission/ Upper Commissioner Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Collector/ Additional Collector Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 5. Sub Divisional Officer, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 6. M. Singh S/o Punit Ram, Aged About 35 Years Caste Marar, R/o Village Sanod, Tahsil And P. S. Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner For State For Respondent No.6: : Mr. Luv Kumar Ramteke, Advocate : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. G.A. Mr. Anand Dadariya, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 15/01/2025 Order on Board 2 1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner is challenged the order dated 30.06.2014 passed by the illegal and arbitrary action of the respondents in which the respondent no.2 in case no. R.N./5/A-74/463/2010, by which the respondent no.2 set aside the order dated 22.9.2010 and order dated 28.6.2007 passed by the respondent no. 3 and 5, and confirm the order dated 05.01.2006 passed by the respondent no.4. Against the order dated 30.06.2014 the petitioner preferred the review petition before the respondent no.2 which has been dismissed by its order dated 14.02.2017 2. The petitioner prays for following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be called for the record relating to petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be to set aside /quashed the order dated 30.06.2014 passed by the respondent no.2 and confirm the order dated 22.09.2010 passed by the respondent no.3. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favor of the petitioner together with cost of the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned passed by the respondent no.2 is arbitrary illegal and against the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 2341/2002, therefore it is liable to be set aside. He also submit that the respondent no.2 have not properly considered the detailed enquiry report submitted by the concerned Tahsildar, in which she categorically stated that the land in question continuously possess by the petitioner from his predecessor since 1935-36 and the said land has been given by the Malgujar to the predecessor of the petitioner as a Mafee land/Kotwari 3 land. He further submit that accepting this fact by the respondent no.2 that in the Chakbandi Missal of year 1935-36 the name predecessor of the petitioner namely Sirpat is mentioned as mafeedar possession, whereas the name of land holder mentioned as Damodar Das, contrary to the fact the order passed by the respondent no.2 is liable to be set aside in the view of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 2632/2000,W.P. No.2064/2000 and W.P. 341/2002 and as per the provision of Section 57(2) of Land Revenue Code, the petitioner become a Bhumishwami and entitled for bhumiswami right over the land in question. 4. Learned counsel for the State as well as respondent No.6 have place reliance that judgment passed by Hon’ble Division Bench
Decision
7. No order as to costs. vaishali Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE