Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:27591-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 395 of 2025 Ajaj Qureshi S/o Abdul Aziz Qureshi Aged About 45 Years R/o Aman Nagar, Mowa, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellant 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Tahsildar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Municipal Corporation Raipur Through Its Commissioner Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
For Appellant For Respondent(s) For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. : Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, Advocate. : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25/06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the 2 State/respondents No. 1 to 3 as well as Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2. Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh high Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, is to the order dated 30.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC
Decision
No. 2506/2022 by which the petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant has been disposed of directing the writ petitioner/appellant to pursue his remedy available under the law before the concerned Tahsildar. 3. Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the appellant is in possession of land bearing khasra no. 794 area (rakba) 0.607 hectares in village Daldalseoni, Tehsil and District Raipur over the past 10 years. The said land was transferred to the appellant by one Prakash Patel on 01.07.2011 by a transfer of possession deed (Kabja Supurdnama), who had been enjoying the possession of the said land for the past 40 years without any interference. The Kotwar of the village had also recognised this transfer of possession. The appellant, since the possession, is engaged in the business of animal husbandry and had been seeking permission/lease to carry out his business with peaceful possession without any interference through various representations to the authorities concerned but none have given reply to the representations sent. The appellant is in possession since last more than 10 years and there is no complaint of any nature or any interference by any of the authorities against the appellant whatsoever while residing and running the animal husbandry. Though presently the appellant is not having any document regarding allotment of khasra no. 794 area (rakba) 0.607 and the appellant recognises that the land is a government land but he has been paying the property tax for the said land to the Municipal Corporation Raipur, District Raipur since year 2017 till this date. 3 4. Mr. Tiwari further submits that based on the letter dated 21.10.21 to the Additional Collector, Raipur, the appellant had prayed that the land bearing khasra no. 794 area (rakba) 0.607 be given to him under lease from the State Administration as he wishes to increase his business through fish farming and the appellant is ready and willing to pay any fees/ penalty/ duty levied by the State for grant of such lease. In fact, this request has been under consideration by the Additional Collector, Raipur, based on which through order dated 31.05.2022 by the court of Tehsildar all the concerned authorities have been sent a letter describing the possession of land by the petitioner and an order for advertisement has been issued on 31.05.2022 calling for any objection as to possession of the said land by the appellant, the last date for calling any objection in this regard has been given as 15.06.2022. 5. Mr. Tiwari next submtis that the appellant was very hopeful that the lease in regards to the land bearing khasra no. 794 area (rakba) 0.607 would be allotted to him as he has already been in possession of this land for more than 10 years and is carrying on his business peacefully. The appellant was taken aback when he came to know about the ex-parte order issued by the Tehsildar, Raipur where a Bedhakli warrant has been issued stating that the appellant is under illegal possession of government land with khasra no. 794 rakba 0.008 hectares, khasra no. 810 rakba 0.020 hectares, khasra no. 811 rakba 0.010 hectares, with last date to move out of possession is 07.06.2022 (Annexure P/1), as the appellant had not received any notice nor had he participated in the proceedings before the court of the Tehsildar. From the same ofÏce of the Tehsildar, the order for eviction has been issued with the last date as 07.06.2022 and an order of advertisement calling for objections till 15.06.2022 for allowing the appellant to get a lease of the said land. Such 4 an act by the administration by giving both orders, is perverse and illegal. is liable to be set aside 6. On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3/State, as well as Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4-Municipal Corporation, submit that the even before the learned Single Judge, the appellant/writ petitioner had merely prayed for quashing of the eviction order dated 24.05.2022 (Annexure P/1) and not the original order passed in Revenue Case No. 202110110200206/A-68/Year 2021-2022, dated 24.05.2022. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it transpires that the petitioner has been directed to take recourse to the alternative remedy available to him under the law by approaching the Tehsildar, Raipur and the Tahsildar, Raipur was also directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Instead of taking availing the said remedy, the appellant/writ petitioner has preferred to file the present appeal. On going through the pleadings and materials available on record, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. As such, this appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.06.26 20:34:28 +0530