Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:37484 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4021 of 2025 1 - Smt. Triveni Bai W/o Late Ramavtar Sonkar Aged About 55 Years R/o Near Sheetala Chowk - Sheetala Mandir, Bhatgaon, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rakesh Sonkar S/o Late Ramavtar Sonkar Aged About 39 Years R/o Near Sheetala Chowk - Sheetala Mandir, Bhatgaon, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ritesh Sonkar S/o Late Ramavtar Sonkar Aged About 35 Years R/o Near Sheetala Chowk - Sheetala Mandir, Bhatgaon, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Durgesh Sonkar S/o Late Ramavtar Sonkar Aged About 34 Years R/o Near Sheetala Chowk - Sheetala Mandir, Bhatgaon, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Roshan Lal Gavri S/o Late Manohar Lal Gavri Aged About 65 Years R/o Patrakaar Colony, Fafadih, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mansaram Sonkar S/o Bhaiya Lal Sonkar R/o Bharibada, Infront Of Wine Shop, Bhatagaon, Raipur, Tahsil And Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Nayab Tahsildar Raipur, Tahsil And Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Patwari Halka No. 60 Village Bhatagaon, Raipur, Tahsil And Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Tahsil And Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner For Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. RajKamal Singh, along with Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocate : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.08.01 11:06:54 +0530 2 31/07/2025 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition is being preferred against the impugned order dated 03.01.2023 passed by Naib Tahsildar Raipur in Case No. RC No. 202110113800329/A-70/21-22 & the impugned order dated 19.05.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional ofÏcer Revenue Raipur RAC No. 202301111000151/A-70-/22-23. The subject land i.e. the land situated in Khasra No. 1145, 1146/2, area 0.3800, 0.2750 hectare situated in Village: Bhatgaon, Patwari Circle No.60, Raipur-1, Tahsil and District: Raipur, Chhattisgarh belongs to the petitioners' ancestor Late Bhulau Ram Sonkar and now is actually owned by the petitioners in succession. But the same has been illegally mutated in the favour of Respondent No.1 without any legal instrument or Conveyance Deed of any Kind. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Respondent No.1 Roshan Lal Gavari submitted an application in the Court of Ld. Naib Tahsildar, Raipur under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959 suppressing the fact that, a Civil Suit No.324 of 2024 was already pending before the Court of Ld. 5th Additional Judge of the Court of Civil Judge Class-1, Raipur, Chhattisgarh with regard to the ownership of the subject land i.e. the land situated in Khasra No. 1145, 1146/2, area 0.3800, 0.2750 hectare situated in Village: Bhatgaon, Patwari Circle No.60, Raipur-1, Tahsil and District: Raipur, Chhattisgarh seeking possession of the subject land from Respondent No.2 3 Man Sagar Sonkar @ Mansha Ram Sonkar alleging his illegal encroachment upon the said land. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Accordingly, by filing the aforesaid application u/s 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959, the Respondent No.1 requested to remove the alleged encroachment made by the Respondent No.2 on the said land and to handover it's vacant possession back to him. Replying to the aforesaid application filed u/s 250 CGLRC 1959 the respondent No.2; Mansha Ram submitted before the Court of Ld. Naib Tahsildar, made a clear statement that the subject land was earlier jointly owned by Late Mantora Bai & Late Ram Avatar Sonkar which later came in succession to Late Ram Avtar Sonkar and thereafter to his wife & Children; Smt. Triveni Bai Wd/o Late Ram Avatar Sonkar and her Children. And, also that, the respondent no. I was never holding the possession of the subject land and that, the subject land was never taken by him on lease from respondent No.1, rather he has been cultivating the said land since last 25 years after taking it on rent from Late Mantora Bai and Triveni Bai Sonkar Wd/o Late Ram Avtar Sonkar and that he is now regularly paying the rent to Triveni Bai Sonkar which is a well known fact to Respondent No.1. Therefore, the question of the Respondent No.1 handing over the possession of the said land does not arise as the owner of the said land was Smt. Mantora Bai & now the owner is Smt. Triveni Bai & her children. The Respondent No.2 had been cultivating the above land with the permission of Smt. Mantora Bai/ Triveni Bai. Therefore, the application filed by the Respondent No.1 is not maintainable under 4 the provisions of section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. 4. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite of the above, facts, the Court of Ld. Naib Tehsildar without adding the petitioners as a party in the matter has passed the impugned order dated 03.01.2023 passed by Naib Tahsildar Raipur in Case No. RC No. 202110113800329/A-70/21-22 which is totally illegal & beyond jurisdiction. The Respondent No. 2 aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Tahsildar the have moved an appeal before the Sub divisional ofÏcer Raipur which was rejected by the impugned order dated 19.05.2023 passed by Ld. Sub Division OfÏcer afÏrming the order of Ld. Tahsildar thereby approving the dispossession of Respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the appeal presented by the respondent no.2 got rejected, the Ld. Naib Tahsildar Raipur has vacated the subject land along with petitioners' another land situated in Khasra No.1145 which was not even mentioned in the impugned orders resulting which the petitioners who are predominantly farmers have lost the source of livelihood which has been completely setback by the impugned orders passed in total ignorance/ negligence of the provisions of section 111 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 & section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Therefore he prays for setting aside the order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Raipur. 6. Learned counsel for respondents that with regard to the grievance 5 of the petitioner, there is an alternative remedy is available to petitioner to file appeal under Section 44(1) of CG Land Revenue Code 1959. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Considering the submission of the respondents and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Sub Divisional OfÏcer (R )v Raipur has passed the order (Annexure P-1) against the petitioners and the order is an appealable order, therefore there is an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 44(1) of the CG Land Revenue Code 1959. Moreover, the petitioners also get relief from the civil suit which is pending before the Civil Court, Accordingly,
Decision
the present writ petition stands disposed of. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on the merits of the case. (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Sd/- Jyoti