Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.09.01 13:57:26 +0530 2025:CGHC:42421 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4465 of 2025 1 - United Church of Northern India Trust Association, A Body Corporate Duly Registered Under The Provisions of The Companies Act 1913, Having Its Office At Omega Building, 19, August Kranti Marg, Nana Chowk, Mumbai, Maharashtra, Through its Authorised Representative, Shri Nitin Lawrence, S/o Shri Harbert Lawrence, Aged About 39 Years, Secretary, Diocese of Chhattisgarh, Church of North India, Opposite Raj Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Raipur Division, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector (Nazul) Collectorate, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Nazul Officer Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Hindu Swabhiman Sangathan, Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Anant Vihar Colony, Mowa, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner For State/Respondents No.1 to 4 : :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Amrito Das, Advocate Shri Praveen Das, Deputy Advocate General 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 21/08/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This petition has been filed seeking following reliefs: “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record concerning the issuance of the letter dated 23.07.2025 by the respondents for its kind perusal and consideration. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing the respondents to ensure supply of the certified copy of the order dated 16.07.2025 to the petitioner concerning the permanent lease of the concerned land which was held by the petitioner since 1920. 10.3 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ restraining the respondent authorities from taking any action against the petitioner based on the order dated 16.07.2025 or any subsequent order passed behind the back of the petitioner without affording an opportunity to judicial remedy. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court, may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the year 1920 lease was granted in favour of the petitioner for the 3 land ad-measuring area 259476 Square Feet situated at Raipur. The said land is a Nazul land. The lease existed till 2022. The petitioner was kept in dark and certain orders were passed by the State Government on 16.7.2025 against the petitioner without issuance of any notice and without grant of any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner even insisted for supply of copy of the said order, but, then the same was also not supplied and efforts were made to take over the land from the petitioner. The petitioner even requested for inspection of the said file, however, the same was denied. The respondents authorities have acted in a highly hidden manner to conduct the proceedings concerning the petitioner without granting the petitioner any opportunity to participate in the said proceedings or to even supply the necessary documents. The respondents authorities being State are duty bound to act within the rigors of legal bound and to act fairly. The respondents authorities have deprived the petitioner from supply of copy of recommendations made against them, copy of the orders passed against them and there is no opportunity of hearing being provided to the petitioner before issuance of the orders. The petitioner has annexed the lease deed for the period from 1992 to 31.3.2022 and alleged report was submitted by the Tahsildar on 28.2.2018 and the petitioner was served with a letter informing that some order was passed by the State Government on 16.7.2025 and on 26.7.2025 the petitioner submitted its objection and on 6.8.2025 the petitioner preferred an application seeking copy of the order dated 4 16.7.2025. 5. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents No.1 to 4 vehemently argued that the lease was granted for a period of 30 years from the year 1992 to 31.3.2022. The lease period has already expired, but, the petitioner never made any application for renewal of the lease. Thereafter, some complaints were received by the concerned respondent authority and after due inquiry and proceeding initiated by the Nazul OfÏcer, in which the petitioner has already participated, the order has been passed. He further contended that as per para 30 of part 5 of the Revenue Book Circular, there is a provision for appeal. 6. From perusal of the record, it is crystal clear that the lease was granted in favour of the petitioner for the period from 1992 to 2022. It is a disputed fact whether the petitioner has applied for renewal of the lease or not because there is no acknowledgment in the application (Annexure P4). However, the lease granted in favour of the petitioner is a statutory lease and there is a clause of renewal (Clause 8), which reads as under: “(8) The lessor further coveanant that it will at the and of the term hereby granted so on from time to time thereafter at the end of each association further term of years as be granted at the request and cost of the lessee, 5 execute to him a renewed lease of the land for the term of thirty years: Provided limit the today be suced from the grant of every renewal lease and that every renewed to said to him such of the conditions as herein contained as shall be approval ofÏce and such grant conditions as may be thought fit for the future. Provided further that the decision of the lessor about the rent to be fixed and condition to be imposed at each successive renewal shall be final. so also the lesser successor in interest whether by transfer or by inheritance be bound to give notice with similar particulars within a month after entering into possed.” 7. It is pertinent to mention here that the State Government has issued circular on 12.2.2015. Paragraph 1.6 of the circular reads as under: “1-6- ऐसे मामले] जि(cid:9)समें प्ሾा अवधि(cid:16) समा् हो गई हो] लेकि(cid:23)न प ्ሾेदार (cid:23)े ्ቛारा नवीनी(cid:23)रण (cid:23)ा आवेदन प्ቔ ्ቚस्तुत न कि(cid:23)या गया हो%& ऐसे मामले] जि(cid:9)समें प्ሾा अवधि(cid:16) समा् हो गई हो] लेकि(cid:23)न प्ሾेदार या उस(cid:23)े वारिरसानों (cid:23)े ्ቛारा प्ሾा नवीनी(cid:23)रण (cid:23)ा आवेदन प्ቔ ्ቚस्तुत न कि(cid:23)या गया हो] उन मामलों में रा(cid:9)स्व किनरी्ቌण न(cid:9)ूल (cid:23)े ्ቛारा मेकि*नेंस खसरे में द(cid:9), ्ቚवृकि. (cid:23)े आ(cid:16)ार पर प ्ሾेदारवार प ्ሾा अवधि(cid:16) समा् होने (cid:23)ी धितथि1 (cid:23)ी (cid:9)ान(cid:23)ारी 6 (cid:23)े सा1 न(cid:9)ूल अधि(cid:16)(cid:23)ारी (cid:23)ो ्ቚधितवेदन ्ቚस्तुत कि(cid:23)या (cid:9)ावेगा] तत्प्ቐात न(cid:9)ूल अधि(cid:16)(cid:23)ारी (cid:23)े ्ቛारा प्ሾेदार या उन(cid:23)े किवधि(cid:16)(cid:23) वारिरसों (cid:23)ो नोकि*स (cid:9)ारी (cid:23)र प ्ሾा नवीनी(cid:23)रण (cid:23)े संबं(cid:16) में (cid:9)वाब ्ቚा् कि(cid:23)या (cid:9)ावेगा। यकिद प्ሾेदार या उस(cid:23)े किवधि(cid:16)(cid:23) वारिरसों (cid:23)े ्ቛारा प्ሾा नवीनी(cid:23)रण (cid:23)ी मांग (cid:23)ी (cid:9)ाती है] तो उन(cid:23)े मांग (cid:23)े आ(cid:16)ार पर य1ाቝኌस्1धित उपर किवन्दु (cid:23)~eka (cid:23) 1 या 2 (cid:23)े ्ቚाव(cid:16)ानों (cid:23)े अनुसार प ्ሾा नवीनी(cid:23)रण (cid:23)ी (cid:23)ाय,वाही (cid:23)ी (cid:9)ावेगी। यकिद प्ሾेदार (cid:23)ो सुनवाई (cid:23)ा समुधि:त अवसर देने (cid:23)े बाद भी उस(cid:23)े ्ቛारा प्ሾा नवीनी(cid:23)रण में रूधि: नहीं ली (cid:9)ाती है] तो Hkwfe शास(cid:23)ीय द(cid:9), (cid:23)ी (cid:9)ा स(cid:23)े गी ।” 8. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the order passed by the revenue authorities has not been provided to the petitioner. The petitioner has filed an application for obtaining copy, which proves from the record. Therefore, the State is directed to supply copies of each and every document with regard to the lease land including complaints, all the orders passed by the revenue authorities or State Government with respect to the lease, any panchnama, any demarcation report of the subject land to the petitioner within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order so that the petitioner may file an appeal before the appropriate forum. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of an order of interim stay. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the State has already taken over possession of the subject land from the petitioner, therefore, no order of 7 stay should be granted. He refers to Para 30 of Part 5 of the Revenue Book Circular, which reads as under: “भाग पाँ: - अपील और किनगरानी (cid:23)ं धिB(cid:23)ा 30. (1) इस परिरप्ቔ (cid:23)े अंतग,त (cid:23)े वल ए(cid:23) ही अपील (cid:23)ी (cid:9)ा स(cid:23)े गी। आबं*न अधि(cid:16)(cid:23)ारी (cid:9)हाँ तहसीलदार/नायब तहसीलदार हो, उन(cid:23)े आदेश (cid:23)े किवरु्ቍ - अनुकिवभागीय अधि(cid:16)(cid:23)ारी (cid:23)ो एवं (cid:9)हाँ आबं*न अधि(cid:16)(cid:23)ारी - (cid:23)लेक्*र हो उन(cid:23)े आदेश (cid:23)े किवरु्ቍ - संभागीय (cid:23)किम्र (cid:23)ो आदेश (cid:23)ी तारीख (cid:23)े 45 किदन (cid:23)े अंदर अपील (cid:23)ी (cid:9)ा स(cid:23)े गी। अपील में पारिरत आदेश अंधितम होगा। अपील (cid:23)रने (cid:23)ा अधि(cid:16)(cid:23)ार - ्ቚ्ा(cid:16)ीन भूकिम से लगी हुई भूकिम (cid:23)े (cid:23)ाश्त(cid:23)ार संबंधि(cid:16)त ्ቇाम पं:ायत त1ा ऐसे व्यकिL जि(cid:9)स(cid:23)ा भू-आवं*न (cid:23)े लिलए आवेदन- प्ቔ, ्ቚ्ा(cid:16)ीन भूकिम (cid:23)ा आवं*न होने (cid:23)े समय लंकिबत रहा हो, - (cid:23)ो होगा। इस(cid:23)े अधितरिरL अपीलीय अधि(cid:16)(cid:23)ारी (cid:23)ी किवशेष अनुमधित से वे व्यकिL भी अपील (cid:23)र स(cid:23)ें गे (cid:9)ो कि(cid:23)न्हीं अपरिरहाय, (cid:23)ारणवश समय पर आवेदन-प्ቔ नहीं दे स(cid:23)े । (2) इस परिरप्ቔ (cid:23)े अंतग,त पारिरत कि(cid:23)ये गये कि(cid:23)सी भी मूल आवं*न अ1वा अपील आदेश - (cid:9)ो जि(cid:9)लाध्य्ቌ ्ቛारा पारिरत कि(cid:23)या गया हो - (cid:23)ो स्वयमेव अ1वा संबंधि(cid:16)त व्यकिL आवेदन-प्ቔ पर किनगरानी संभागीय (cid:23)किम्र ्ቛारा (cid:23)ी (cid:9)ा स(cid:23)े गी। परन्तु यकिद आवं*न आदेश (cid:23)े किवरु्ቍ (cid:23)ं धिB(cid:23)ा 30-1 (cid:23)े अंतग,त अपील (cid:23)ी (cid:9)ा स(cid:23)ती 1ी परन्तु नहीं (cid:23)ी गई तो ऐसे आदेश (cid:23)े किवरु्ቍ (cid:23)ोई प्ቌ किनगरानी आवेदन-प्ቔ ्ቚस्तुत नहीं (cid:23)र स(cid:23)े गा। 8 (3) आयुL ्ቛारा अपील में पारिरत कि(cid:23)ये गये आदेश (cid:23)े किवरू्ቍ किनगरानीय राज्य शासन (cid:23)ो (cid:23)ी (cid:9)ा स(cid:23)े गी ।” 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that an order may be passed to the effect that no further alienation of the subject land shall be made. 11. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate and is accordingly directed that all the orders passed by the revenue authorities and the State including the other documents as directed above shall be provided by the State to the petitioner within 7 days after receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter the petitioner may file an appeal as per Para 30 of Part 5 of the Revenue Book Circular within 7 days after receipt of the aforesaid orders and documents from the State and after receipt of the appeal from the petitioner, the concerned authority shall decide the appeal within 15 days from the date of submission of the appeal. Meanwhile, no further alienation of the subject land shall be made by the respondents authorities.
Decision
12. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Gopal