Mohd. Reyaj Ansari S/o Mohd Husain Aged About 62 Years (Wrongly Mention In The v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan New
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22577 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP(C) No. 2754 of 2025 Mohd. Reyaj Ansari S/o Mohd Husain Aged About 62 Years (Wrongly Mention In The Impugned Order As Mohd. Reyan Ansari), R/o Ward No. 3 Balrampur P.S. And Tahsil- Balrampur Distt- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary, Department Of Urban Development Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector, Balrampur, Distt- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Balrampur, Distt- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 5 - Tahsildar, Balrampur, Distt- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 6 - Chief Municipal Officer, Nagarpalika Parishad- Balrampur, Distt- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner For State Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocates Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. assisted by
Legal Reasoning
: : Mr. Satish Gupta, G.A. VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09 16:58:46 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 09/06/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s) : “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record of the case. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned eviction notice dated 30.05.2025 issued by the respondent No.5 (Annexure P/1) and restrain the respondent authorities to not dispossess the petitioner from the subject land and house. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside of the entire proceeding initiated by the respondent No.5 under Section 248 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code upon the subject property of the petitioner in pursuance of impugned order dated 30.05.2025 issued by the respondent No.5 as per Annexure P/1. 3 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold the inquiry in the present case. 10.5 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The present petition is being made against the impugned eviction notice dated 30.5.2025 (ANNEXURE P/1) issued by the respondent no.5 by which he has directed to the petitioner to vacate the residential house and possession of the subject land bearing khasra no. 21 rakba 0.51 hectare out of 0.018 hectare situated at ward no.3 Balrampur, Distt-Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G) within 7 days. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the patta of the subject land bearing old khasra no. 6/1 out of rakba 0.201 hectare and khasra no. 6/1 out of 0.151 hectare total two no. of plat rakba 0.352 hectare was granted by the revenue authorities in the name of petitioner vide order dated 20.9.1982 in revenue case no. 260/A-19/1981-82 and after allotment of patta, name of petitioner was mutated in the revenue record. In the new settlement, old khasra no. 6/1 was created as khasra no. 21 and 844 Rakba 0.51 hectare and 0.69 hectare, but due to mistake of revenue authorities entered the said khasra number in the revenue record as Government land and the said fact is came to knowledge to the petitioner in the month of April, 2025 when the petitioner went to the Office of Patwari for obtaining the khasra and B-1 of the subject 4 land then the concern Patwari has stated that the said land is interred as Government land then the petitioner immediately applied for obtaining the certified copy of the revenue record and after obtaining the certified copy of revenue record, petitioner filed an application for correction of the name of petitioner in the revenue record before the S.D.O (Revenue), Balrampur which is still pending. 4. On the basis of wrong entry in the subject land as Govt. land, the respondent no.5, issued the show cause notice to the petitioner and directed to submit the revenue record of the subject land on 09.5.2025 and after receiving of notice, petitioner filed the detail reply and submitted the copy of patta of the subject land and khasra B-1 of the year 1981-82 to 1985-86 and also submitted the copy of application filed by the petitioner for correction of his name in the revenue record of the subject land before the S.D.O, Balrampur and stating that the application for correction of his name in revenue record is still pending and no final decision has been taken by the S.D.O. After receiving of reply, learned Tahsildar without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and without passing any order on the pending application before the S.D.O filed by the petitioner and passed the final order under Section 248 of the Land Revenue Code, holding that the petitioner is encroacher of the subject land and in respect of final order, no information was given to the petitioner because on 30.5.2025 only argument was heard to the petitioner and on same date final order has 5 been passed by the Tahsildar and no information was given to the petitioner about the final order and very next day on 31.5.2025, the impugned notice was serve to the petitioner by the Kotwar then the petitioner came to knowledge about the final order passed by the Tahsildar which is clearly show that the entire proceeding intuited by the Tahsildar is illegal, malafide and contrary to law. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not encroacher of the subject land and he is the owner of the subject land on the basis of patta granted by the revenue authorities in favour of petitioner, therefore, the proceeding under Section 248 of Land Revenue Code is not maintainable on the private land, therefore, the entire proceeding initiated by the Tahsildar under Section 248 of Land Revenue Code is illegal or not maintainable. It is further submitted that subject land of the petitioner is situated at municipal area and petitioner is regularity pay the house tax to the Municipal Corporation, Balrampur and the Tahsildar initiated the proceeding under Section 248 of the Land Revenue Code and passed the eviction order which is without jurisdiction because in municipal area, proceeding under Section 248 of C.G Land Revenue Code is not maintainable, therefore, the entire proceeding initiated by the Tahsiladr is illegal. 6. It is submitted that in the eviction notice no sufficient time was not granted to the petitioner because the final order has been passed by the respondent no.5 under Section 248 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue 6 Code on 30.5.2025 and on same day eviction notice has been issued by the respondent no.5 and directed to the petitioner to vacate the possession of the subject land within 7 days. It is submitted that the petitioner in possession of the subject land since long period and constructed the house and residing with their family after allotment of patta of the subject land and he is owner of the subject land but due to mistake of revenue authorities, name of petitioner was deleted and interred as Govt. land and on the basis of revenue record, respondent no.5 initiated the proceeding under section 248 of Land Revenue Code and passed the impugned order and due to arbitrary action on the part of respondent no.4, petitioner has been dispossess from the subject land and demolish the residential house then the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury. Hence, this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the State-respondent opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that since the order has been passed in a revenue proceeding, as such the challenge to it should have been made in an appeal under Section 44(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. On perusal of the record, I have found that the petitioner has not filed the order of the Tahsildar under Section 248 of the Land Revenue 7 Code. It is also pertinent to mention here that Section 44 of the CG Land Revenue Code of 1959 Provides as under : “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 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; 8 (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 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 - 9 (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. 10. In this case, it is an admitted fact that the Tahsildar has issued the notice to the petitioner under Section 248(1) of the Code, 1959. Therefore, there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 44(1) of the Code, 1959. Thus, in view of the aforesaid aspect of the matter, I do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. However, petitioner is at liberty to approach before the concerned appellate authority within a period of 15 days from today with all relevant documents including patta of the suit land and in-turn the concerned appellate authority shall consider and decide the appeal 10 as per law. During the above 15 days period, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition
Decision
is disposed of. C.C. Today. Vasant Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge