Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:10848 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 733 of 2021 1 - Balaram Son Of Shri Batku @ Dukhi Ram Aged About 42 Years Caste Satnami, Resident Of Village Tulsi, Tahsil Sheorinarayan, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dujeram Son Of Shri Batku @ Dukhi Ram Aged About 45 Years Caste Satnami, Resident Of Village Tulsi, Tahsil Sheorinarayan, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan New Mantralaya Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Link Court Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh -2- 5 - The Tahsildar Tahsil Office Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 6 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 7 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 8 - Additional Tahsildar Tahsil Sheorinarayan, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 9 - Patwari Halka No. 24 Revenue Circle Sheorinarayan, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners For State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu, Advocate : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05.03.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “(i) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 01.01.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent no. 3 The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) passed in appeal case по. 202011060300023 A- 68/2020-21 which is arising by order dated 19.11.2020 (Annexure P-4) passed by the respondent no. 8, in the 3 interest of justice. (ii) That, further this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities that before removal of the house of the petitioners an alternate arrangement may be made for the rehabilitation of the petitioners, in the interest of justice. (iii) That, further this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to prepare Cattle Shelter Home (Gothan) in another government land, in the interest of justice. (iv) Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioners.” 2. Mr. Sahu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the lease of Survey No.1840/1 admeasuring 0.50 acre and Survey No.1840/1 admeasuring 0.75 acre situated at Village Tulsi Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) was granted by the competent authority to the petitioners in the year 2008. He would contend that the Tehsildar, Sheorinarayan passed an order of eviction on 19.11.2020. He would further contend that an appeal was preferred by the petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) and the same was dismissed vide order dated 01.01.2021. Mr. Sahu would further submit that the lease deeds granted in favour of the petitioners were -4- not taken into consideration by the revenue authorities. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Pandey, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sahu. He would submit that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) is appealable before the Commissioner according to the provisions of Section 44 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code of 1959’). 4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. It appears that the lease was granted in favour of the petitioners and an order of eviction was passed on 19.11.2020 by the Tehsildar. The order passed by the Tehsildar was affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa vide order dated 01.01.2021. 6. Section 44 of the Code of 1959 reads as under:- “Section 44. Appeal and Appellate Authorities- (1) Save where it has been otherwise provided, an appeal shall lie from every original order under this Code or the rules made thereunder- (a)if such order is passed by any Revenue 5 Officer subordinate to the Sub-Divisional Officer, whether or not the officer passing the order is invested with the powers of the Collector-to the Sub-Divisional Officer (b)if such order is passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, whether or not invested with the powers of the Collector-to the Collector; (c)if such order is passed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to the Settlement Officer- to the Settlement Officer; (d)if such order is passed by any Revenue Officer in respect of whom a direction has been issued under sub-section (3) of Section 12 or sub-section (2) of Section 21-to such Revenue Officer as the State Government may direct; (e)if such order is passed by a Collector whether exercising the powers of Collector or Settlement Officer, during the currency of the term of settlement-to the [Board of Revenue] [Substituted by Act No. 17 of 2008]; (f)if such order is passed by a Settlement Officer, whether exercising the powers of Settlement Officer or the powers of a Collector in connection with any settlement operation unless otherwise expressly provided-to the Settlement Commissioner; (g)if such order is passed by the [Commissioner or the] [Inserted by Act No. 17 of 2008] Settlement Commissioner-to the Board.” (2) Save as otherwise provided a second appeal shall lie against every order passed in first appeal under this Code or the rules made -6- thereunder- (i)by the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Collector to the Commissioner; (ii)by the Settlement Officer to the Settlement Commissioner; (iii)by the Commissioner to the Board - (a)if the original order has in the first appeal been varied or reversed otherwise than in a matter of cost; or (b)on any of the following grounds and no other, namely, -(i)that the order is contrary to law or usage having the force of law; or (ii)that the order has failed to determine some material issue of law or usage having force of law; or (iii)that there has been a substantial error or defect in the procedure as prescribed by this Code, which may have produced error or defect in the decision of the case upon merits.]” 7. A bare perusal of the provisions of Section 44 of the Code of 1959 would make it clear that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) is appealable before the Commissioner, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, this petition is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to prefer a second appeal before the Commissioner according to the provisions of Section 44 of the Code of 1959. 7 8. If the petitioners prefer an appeal before the Appellate authority, it is expected that the said authority shall decide the appeal strictly in accordance with the law. 9. The issue of limitation shall be considered by the said authority taking a lenient view as the matter remained pending before this Court for a considerable period. 10. Certified copy of the impugned order be returned after retaining its xerox copy. Rekha Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge