Nafr High Court
Case Details
Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.01 17:39:09 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:43154 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 937 of 2015 1. Shri Jain Shwetamber Terapanthi Sabha Through Its President, Shri Premchand Jain, S/o Late Shri Manak Chand Jain, Aged About 56 Years, Shri Jain Shwetambar Terapanthi Sabha, Sadar Bazaar, R/o House No 2 Chowbey Colony Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2. Dharamchand Bhansali, S/o Late Shri Mohanlal Bhansali, Aged About 69 Years R/o Sadar Bazar Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Rajendra Daga, S/o Shri K. L. Daga, Aged About 59 Years The Ex- Chairman Of Middle Income Group Housing Co- Operative Society, Limited, Vivekanand Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantarlaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2. Board Of Revenue, Chhattisgahr, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Middle Income Group Housing Co-Operative Society Limited, Vivekanand Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Regd. No. D R/ R P R 9/1960 Through The Officer In Charge., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Collector, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Commissioner, Raipur Division Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6. Nazul Officer, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
7. Ramnarayan Vyas, S/o Shri H. N. Vyas, Aged About 45 Years R/o 24, Vivekanand Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 8. Ajay Sharma, S/o Late Shri Fattelal Sharma, Aged About 50 Years R/o. 44, Vivekanand Nagar, Raipur , Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 9. Ashok Purohit, S/o Late Shri Daulal Purohit, Aged About 54 Years R/o 47, Vivekanand Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Dr. Nirmal Shukla, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Dinesh Kumar Bole, Advocate and Mr. Shubham Dewangan, Advocate For State : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Addl. A.G. For Respondents No. 7 to 9 : Mr. A.N. Bhakta, Advocate along with Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 26-08-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:- 10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to passing of the impugned orders for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2) The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 06.08.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Collector, Raipur in Case No.29/A-20 (3)/2006-07; order dated 14.03.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur in Appeal dated Case No.186/A-20(1)2008-09; 06.08.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Circuit Court, Raipur; and order dated 04.08.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed by the State of Chhattisgarh in Case No.F 10-02/Seven- 1/Nig.Abhya./2012-13.
Decision
order 10.3) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.4) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioners. 2) Facts of the present case are that Petitioner No. 1 – Shri Jain 3 Shwetambar Terapanthi Sabha, Amolak Bhawan, Sadar Bazar, Raipur, (C.G.), is a registered society under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Societies Registration Act, 1973. Respondent No. 3 – Middle Income Group Housing Co-Operative Society Limited, Vivekanand Nagar, Raipur (C.G.), is a Co-operative Housing society registered under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Respondent No. 3 – Society applied for allotment of land before the State Government, and the State Government approved the allotment of land bearing Survey Nos. 248, 287 and 284 of Plots No. 24/1 and 26/1 ad-measuring 3,49,720 sq.ft. vide order dated 13.07.1978. The lease deed of the aforementioned land was executed in favor of respondent No. 3. Petitioner No. 1 took a decision to construct a temple in Raipur, and they approached Respondent No. 3 – Society for allotment of land for the construction of the temple and submitted an application to the President of Respondent No. 3 – Society. Respondent No. 3 agreed to allot the land and asked Petitioner No. 1 to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the development charges, and the said amount was deposited by Petitioner No. 1 with the Central Bank of India, Sadar Bazar – Raipur Branch through Cheque No. 014888 on 31.03.1992. On 15.04.1992, Respondent No. 3 – Society issued an allotment letter in favor of Petitioner No. 1. As per the allotment letter, 7762 sq.ft. of land was allotted to Petitioner No. 1 for public purposes. Thereafter, the petitioners, with the intention to raise the construction, moved an application for the grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) before respondent No. 3 in the year 2000, and it was granted on 21.05.2000. The public authorities, like the Nazul Officer, Raipur, the 4 Joint Director, Town & Country Planning Department, and the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, had also issued NOCs for the construction of the temple. The petitioners moved an application for the renewal of the lease for the land which was allotted to it before the Nazul Officer, Raipur, and it was renewed vide order dated 16.01.2004. Respondents No. 7 to 9 moved an application before the Additional Collector, Raipur, according to the provisions of Clause 18 (i) of Chapter IV of the Revenue Book Circular on 29.01.2007, assailing the order passed by the Nazul Officer, Raipur, dated 16.01.2004. The Additional Collector, Raipur, while exercising the power conferred under Section 32 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, vide order dated 06.08.2007, set- aside the order passed by the Nazul Officer, Raipur. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, who vide order dated 14.03.2011, dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, and it was also dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2012. Finally, the petitioners approached the Department of Revenue & Disaster Management, State of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, by submitting a representation, which was rejected vide order dated 04.08.2014. 3) Dr. Nirmal Shukla, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the orders passed by the Additional Collector, Raipur, the Commissioner, Raipur Division, the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, and the State of Chhattisgarh are erroneous and contrary to the well- settled principles of law. He further submits that the lease was granted in favor of respondent No. 3 – Society pertaining to 3,49,720 sq.ft. on 13.07.1978, and 7,762 sq. ft of land was allotted to the petitioners by 5 respondent No. 3 – Society on 15.04.1992. He contends that no new lease was granted by respondent No. 3 in favor of petitioner No. 1, and the NOC for the construction of the temple was also granted. He would contend that respondent No. 7, namely Ramnarayan Vyas, was one of the members of the Board of Directors of respondent No. 3 – Society; therefore, the objection raised by respondents No. 7 to 9 before the Additional Collector, Raipur, was not maintainable at all. He further contends that the liberty was granted by the Commissioner, Raipur Division, in favor of the petitioners to approach the Nazul Officer, Raipur, according to provisions of Sections 109 and 110 of the Code, 1959; therefore, an application was moved by the petitioners before the said authority, which was allowed vide order dated 16.01.2004. He argues that the land ad-measuring 7,762 sq.ft. was allotted to the petitioners by respondent No. 3 on 15.04.1992, and the said allotment order has not been challenged by respondents No. 7 to 9, and it is still in existence. He further argues that the order of mutation was passed by the Nazul Officer, Raipur, on 16.01.2004, whereas the appeal was preferred by respondents No. 7 to 9 before the Additional Collector, Raipur, on 29.01.2007 without explaining the delay. He prays to allow this petition. 4) On the other hand, Mr. Bhakta, counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 7 to 9, submits that the decision to allot 7,762 sq.ft. land to petitioner No. 1 was taken by the President of Respondent No. 3 – Society alone; therefore, the order of mutation passed by the Nazul Officer, Raipur, dated 16.01.2004, was challenged by filing an appeal according to the provisions of Clause 18 (i) of Chapter IV of the Revenue Book Circular. He further submits that the application under 6 Section 32 of the Code, 1959, was moved seeking permission to prefer an appeal as respondents No. 7 to 9 were not a party before the Nazul Officer, Raipur. He contends that the Additional Collector, Raipur, has specifically recorded a finding that a proclamation was issued for mutation of 14,797 sq.ft. land, whereas the application was moved for mutation of 7,762 sq.ft by petitioner No. 1 and the Nazul Officer passed an order with regard to Plot No. 24/1 ad-measuring 7,762 sq.ft. He further contends that the Nazul Officer, Raipur, failed to comply with the mandatory provisions pertaining to mutation; therefore, the order of mutation was set aside. He argues that where the law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner or not at all. He further argues that the revenue Courts may exercise the inherent power under Section 32 of the Code, 1959, and the Additional Collector, Raipur, exercised such power and revenue authorities have recorded concurrent findings; therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) Learned State counsel supports the contention made by Mr. Bhakta. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record. 7) Perusal of the pleadings made in the writ application and the reply, and the documents annexed would show that a total of 3,49,720 sq.ft. land was allotted by the State Government to respondent No. 1 on 13.07.1978. Petitioner No. 1 approached respondent No. 3 for the allotment of land for the construction of the temple, which was accepted. Petitioner No. 1 deposited the premium amount of Rs. 1 lakh through cheque on 31.03.1992. The order of allotment of 7,762 sq.ft 7 land was issued by respondent No. 3 on 15.04.1992 for public purpose, and Petitioner No. 1 was under an obligation to make the payment of the premium amount and other charges, and the possession of land was handed over. A map was also annexed to the order of allotment. The petitioners moved an application before respondent No. 3 for the grant of permission to raise the construction of a temple, which was granted vide order dated 21.05.2000. The petitioners obtained NOCs from various departments/public authorities to raise the construction of the temple. Subsequently, an application under Section 32 of Code, 1959, read with Clause 18 (i) of Chapter IV of the Revenue Book Circular was moved by respondents No. 7 to 9 before the Additional Collector, Raipur, on 29.01.2007, wherein a specific ground was raised to the effect that the decision to allot the land ad-measuring 7,762 sq.ft. was taken by adopting illegal procedure. Respondents No. 7 to 9 only challenged the order dated 16.01.2004 passed by the Nazul Officer, Raipur, whereby the order of mutation was passed in favor of Petitioner No. 1. 8) It is apparent from the application moved by respondents No. 7 to 9 that the application for condonation of delay was not moved. The Additional Collector, Raipur, set aside the order passed by the Nazul Officer on the ground that the procedure contemplated under Sections 109 and 110 of the Code, 1959, has not been followed. If the procedure was not followed by the Nazul Officer while passing the order of mutation, the authority concerned ought to have remitted the matter back to the concerned Nazul Officer to pass a fresh order after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Commissioner, Raipur Division, the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, as 8 well as the State of Chhattisgarh, dismissed the appeal and revision preferred by the petitioners. 9) In the present case, respondents No. 7 to 9 have not challenged the order of allotment issued by respondent No. 3 dated 15.04.1992 before the Additional Collector, Raipur, and no reason has been assigned by respondents No. 7 to 9 in this regard either in the application moved before the Additional Collector, Raipur, or in the return filed to the writ petition. Respondents No. 7 to 9 have also not challenged the permission granted by respondent No. 3 dated 21.05.2000. The application for mutation was moved by Petitioner No. 1 before the Nazul Officer, Raipur, pursuant to the order of allotment and NOCs issued by respondent No. 3 and other establishments. 10) The Additional Collector, Raipur, has not considered the fact that respondent No. 7 was a member of the Board of Directors of respondent No. 3 – Society, thus it can be inferred that the land admeasuring 7,762 square feet was allotted by respondent No. 7 also. If respondents No. 7 to 9 were aggrieved with the order of mutation, they should have challenged it within the period of limitation. Further, the application for condonation of delay was not moved by respondents No. 7 to 9 in support of the application moved under Section 32 of the Code, 1959, and this issue was not considered by the authority concerned in its order dated 06.08.2007. Respondents No. 7 to 9 were not a party to the order passed by the Nazul Officer, and no application was moved by respondents No. 7 to 9 seeking therein permission to prefer an appeal or revision against the said order. 11) It is informed by Dr. Shukla that the construction of the temple was 9 under progress as the construction began in the year 2004. It appears that no objection was raised by respondents No. 7 to 9 when the petitioners started raising the construction, and after three years, a representation was moved by respondents No. 7 to 9 before the Additional Collector. It is also not demonstrated as to how the application under Section 32 of the CG Land Revenue Code was maintainable before the Additional Collector. 12) After a careful consideration of the facts, the orders passed by the Additional Collector, Raipur (06.08.2007); the Commissioner, Raipur Division (14.03.2011); the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue (06.08.2012); and the Department of Revenue & Disaster Management (04.08.2014) are found to be unsustainable in law and are accordingly quashed. 13) In light of the above, the petition is hereby allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya