Nafr High Court
Case Details
YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.04.15 10:50:59 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:16495 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4711 of 2023 Ghanshyam Vaishnav S/o Late Shri Kuleshwar Das Vaishnav Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Gullu, Post Gullu, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Urban Land Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Through Collector District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Tehsildar Tehsil Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 08.04.2025 1 Heard Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents. 2 2 The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following relief(s):- “10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue calling the records of the court below pertaining to the case of the petitioners for perusal of this Hon'ble Court, if this Hon'ble Court thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of mandamus do issue directing the respondents authorities that to decide the representation made by the petitioner as per in light of direction of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and this Hon'ble Court in the matter of W.P.(227) No. 880 of 2015 between Radha Krishna Mandir Village Sidhori Vs. Rainkhilawan Sahu and Ors. (supra) within the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstance of the matter in the interest of justice. 10.3 Cost of the proceedings. 10.4 Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case.” 3 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the predecessors of the petitioner has established a temple of almighty god in their own house and perform several ceremony like life consecration ie. Prana Pratishtha and other various forms of prayers ie puja vidhi and soley managing the different affairs of the deity in temple and made certain provisions which also includes the land of their ownership bearing Survey Nos. 361, 449, 815, 1869, 2344, 2524 admeasuring total area 3.48 hectres situated at village Gullu, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) and trust created in this regard comes within the purview of private trust and which is known as Lalji Mandir Trust and the petitioner's predecessors as stated above not only managing the affairs of the temple but also the said land by carrying out agricultural activities, etc. He further submits that the State authorities relying on the circular dated 11.01.1988, altered the land records and as per the direction in the circular have included the name of the Collector as the Manager although the name of the petitioner has been shown as 'Servarekar'. The petitioner has objected to the said entry of inclusion of the name of the Collector in their private trust however be then state authorities on approaches been made by petitioner's predecessors have stated that they are bound to follow the instruction of the state authorities i.e, the impugned circular dated 11.01.1988 and for this reason the petitioner's predecessors have been turned down however, the petitioner is not having any such documents in support of his contention and efforts made by the petitioner in this 4 regard has fetched no result, hence, the petitioner may be permitted to make representation to the authorities and the state authorities may be directed to consider it and take steps in accordance with law and as per law laid down by this Hon'ble Court with regard to the circular. Reliance has been placed in the judgments passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in matter of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Shri Ranchor Teekam Mandir through Swami and Vyavasthapak Ranchordas Guru Kashiram (Dead) through Lrs., 2013 (2) MPLJ 642 and Sadashiv Giri & Ors. v. Commissioner. Ujjain & Ors., 1985 R.N. 317 as also by this Court in W.P.(227) No.880 of 2015 parties being, Radha Krishna Mandir Village Sidhori v. Ramkhilawan Sahu and Ors. decided on 28.01.2020 to contend that in respect of the land belonging to the petitioner, inclusion of the name of the Collector is in violation of petitioner's fundamental and constitutional rights. It has been contended that earlier, petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing WPC No.3788/2023, which was withdrawn with liberty to file better constituted petition vide order dated 24.08.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a representation dated 28.08.2023 reiterated the grievance and instead of making averment about the representation, etc., which was duly acknowledged by the respondent authorities on 29.08.2023 praying for the decision in the matter within the seven days, however sufficient time has elapsed, till date the petitioner is heed in receipt of decision of the respondent authorities, hence, a 5 direction be issued to the respondent authorities to consider and decide his application/representation within the specific time frame. 4 Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have no objection on the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5 6 The prayer appears to be fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the representation/application filed by the petitioner way back on 28.08.2023 in the light of judgments passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in matter of Shri Ranchor Teekam Mandir through Swami and Vyavasthapak Ranchordas Guru Kashiram (Dead) through Lrs. (supra), Sadashiv Giri (supra) as also by this Court in Radha Krishna Mandir Village Sidhori (supra). 7
Decision
In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned authority on 15.04.2025 along with certified copy of this order, in turn, the competent authority shall consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner within a further period of 15 days in accordance with law. Yogesh Sd/-/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge