Chetan Das v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Revenue And Disaster Management
Case Details
Yadunandan Singh Kanwar S/o Shri Ramesh Kanwar Aged About 41 Years R/o Village - Rishdi, P.H. No. 18, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned As P.H. No. 17 In The Impugned Notice Dated 28.11.2022) Versus ---- Petitioner 2
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2. Collector Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Ra) Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
4. Tahsildar Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
5. Nazul Tahsildar Korba District Korba, Chhattisgarh
6. Station House Officer P.S. Rampur, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
7. Revenue Inspector P.H. No. 18, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh WPC No. 5843 of 2022 ---- Respondents Bhawani Prasad Karsh S/o Shri Firtooram Karsh Aged About 47 Years R/o Village-Rishdi, P.H. No. 18, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned As P.H. No. 17 In The Impugned Notice Dated 28-11-2022) Versus ---- Petitioner
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2. Collector Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Ra) Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
4. Tahsildar Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
5. Nazul Tahsildar Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
6. Station House Officer P.S. Rampur, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
7. Revenue Inspector P.H. No. 18, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh WPC No. 5845 of 2022 ---- Respondents Deepak Sahu S/o Shri Manoj Kumar Sahu, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Rishdi, P.H.No. 18, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned As P.H.No. 17 In The Impugned Notice Dated 28.11.2022) Versus ---- Petitioner
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Revenue And Disaster Management Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Collector, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Ra), Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
4. Tahsildar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
5. Nazul Tahsildar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
6. Station House Officer, Police Station Rampur, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
7. Revenue Inspector, P.H. No. 18, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents 3 WPC No. 92 of 2023 Smt. Sunita Yadav W/o Shri Muniram Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Rishdi, P.H. No.18, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh. Versus ---- Petitioner
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Collector Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Ra) Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
4. Tahsildar Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
5. Nazul Tahsildar Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
6. Station House Officer Police Station Rampur, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
7. Revenue Inspector P.H. No.18, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh WPC No. 93 of 2023 ---- Respondents Smt. Sadhana Soni W/o Shri Raghuvanshi Soni, Aged About 44 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Aayush Soni In The Impugned Notice Dated 28.11.2022) R/o Village - Rishdi, P.H.No. 18, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned As P.H.No. 17 In The Impugned Notice Dated 28.11.2022) Versus ---- Petitioner
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Collector, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Ra), Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
4. Tahsildar, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh
5. Nazul Tahsildar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
6. Station House Officer, Police Station Rampur, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
7. Revenue Inspector, P.H. No. 18, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh WPC No. 95 of 2023 ---- Respondent David Khalkho S/o Shri Gregori Khalkho, Aged About 27 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Only David In Impugned Notice Dated 28-11-2022) R/o Village Rishdi, P.H. No. 18, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned As P.H.No. 17 In The Impugned Notice Dated 28-11-2022) Versus ---- Petitioner
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantrlaya, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Collector, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Ra), Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
4. Tahsildar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
5. Nazul Tahsildar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
6. Station House Officer, P.S. Rampur, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
7. Revenue Inspector, P.H. No. 18, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner/s For State : : Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, Advocate Mr. Rahul Jha, GA with Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Panel lawyers Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 10/01/2023
1. In these three instant writ petitions since the factual matrix of the matters are identical, these three writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order.
2. The instant writ petitions have been filed assailing the impugned orders Annexure P-1 dated 28.11.2022 passed by respondent no.4 whereby the petitioners have been asked to remove their possession over the property that situates at PH No.18(wrongly mentioned at 17 in the notice at Village Rishdi, Tahsil and District Korba.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailing the impugned order Annexure P-1 submits that the said proceedings have been promptly issued by the respondents without there being any proceedings drawn under Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, more particularly, under Section 248 of the said Code. Further contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the notice has been issued in respect of the land over which petitioners are in possession for over a decade and land situates at PH 5 No.18(Wrongly mentioned at PH No.17 in the notice) at village Rishdi Tahsil and District Korba.
4. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are landless people having no place to reside except for the place where they are presently occupying and that petitioners already have been provided with all the basic amenities by the local administration like Electricity, Water, Sewerage , Ration Card, Voter ID etc. and abruptly now respondents have issued a notice for eviction giving 4-5 days time for removal of possession from the said subject land.
5. According to the counsel for the petitioners, even if the petitioners are illegal encroachers the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code provides for a specific provisions which deals with removal of encroachment under Provision of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, the notice of eviction by the respondent no.5 now would be therefore perse bad in law.
6. State counsel on the other hand submits that admittedly the petitioners are illegally occupying the said land. That there is no such land allotted to the petitioners, neither is there any application made by them at any point of time. That the said piece of land has already been allotted for the purpose of construction of employees and staff quarters of District Court, Korba and other Government Department.
7. On the previous date of hearing, learned State counsel was directed to ascertain whether any proceeding under Section 248 have till date been initiated against the petitioners.
8. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned State counsel submits that since there are 4 or 5 similar matters where records shows that proceedings under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code had been initiated and final orders have been passed and where also identical impugned orders were passed dated 28.11.2022 by the 6 Tahsildar. In all probability there may have been proceedings drawn against the petitioners also though there is no such proof available in the pleadings, nor any such instruction had initially got communicated from the State Department. Nonetheless, in case if proceedings have not been initiated, the petitioners would be vacated from the said land only after following due provision of law.
9. Given the submissions made by the counsel for the respondent-State, these writ petitions at this juncture stands disposed of permitting the respondent-State to ensure after due verification of facts as to whether any proceeding under Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, particularly under Section 248 of the said Code has been initiated against the petitioners or not. If proceedings have not been initiated, let petitioners be vacated from the said premises only after conclusion of the proceedings to be drawn under Section 248 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. However, it is made clear that in the event, if any such orders have been passed, the same should be communicated to the petitioners which would enable the petitioner to assail the same, if they so want before the Appellate Authority and also before Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korba in accordance with law along with their application for grant of interim relief, if any.
10. Be that as it may, considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking note of the : (I) That it is peak winter season now. (ii) Petitioners are in possession of the said place for more than a decade. (iii) Petitioners claim that they are landless people and this is the only piece of land that they have in their possession. (iv) Government have schemes and welfare policies for providing land to the landless people and home to the homeless people. 7
11.Under the given factual backdrop, in addition to the right of the petitioners to prefer an appeal against the order dated 28.09.2021, 28.09.2021 &
20.08.2020 respectively, if the law so permits before Appellate Authority, the petitioners are also at liberty to approach respondent No. 2 and also Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korba for allotment of alternative suitable land, if available, where the petitioners can be relocated and they can sustain their family and also can provide shelter to their family.
12. Let this exercise be concluded within a period of 30 days. Meanwhile, respondents may not initiate any coercive steps forcefully against the petitioners or use force for removal of petitioners from the said subject land.
13. All these writ petitions accordingly stand disposed of. Rohit Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge 1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 76 of 2023
1. Smt. Sadhana Soni W/o Shri Raghuvanshi Soni Aged About 44 Years R/o Village - Rishdi, P.H.No. 18, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh Versus ---- Petitioner
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Collector Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh
3. Sub - Divisional Officer (Ra) Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh
4. Tahsildar Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh
5. Nazul Tahsildar Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh
6. Station House Officer Police Station Rampur, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh
7. Revenue Inspector P.H. No. 18, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner For State : : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate Mr. Trivikram Nayak, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 06/02/2023
1. The present MCC has been filed seeking modification of the order dated 10.01.2023 passed in WPC No. 93 of 2023.
2. The modification sought for is to the extent that in the course of disposal of the aforesaid Writ Petition, certain paragraphs which were dictated by this Court stands omitted because of clerical error.
3. According to the Counsel for petitioner, some identical Writ Petitions which were disposed off on the same date, contained the following paragraph 11 and 12:- “11 Be that as it may, considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking note of the : (I) That it is peak winter season now. (ii) Petitioners are in possession of the said place for more than a decade. 2 (iii) Petitioners claim that they are landless people and this is the only piece of land that they have in their possession. (iv) Government have schemes and welfare policies for providing land to the landless people and home to the homeless people.”
12. Under the given factual backdrop, in addition to the right of the petitioners to prefer an appeal against the order dated 28.09.2021, 28.09.2021 & 20.08.2020 respectively, if the law so permits before Appellate Authority, the petitioners are also at liberty to approach respondent No. 2 and also Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korba for allotment of alternative suitable land, if available, where the petitioners can be relocated and they can sustain their family and also can provide shelter to their family.”
4. However, in the course of disposal of the aforesaid Writ Petition of identical nature i.e. WPC No. 93 of 2023 where the similar order was passed, the paragraph 11 and 12 incidentally stood missed.
5. It is further contention of the Counsel for Petitioner that in other similar writ petitions, the liberty was also granted to the petitioner to approach the concerned Municipal Corporation moving appropriate application for alternative suitable land in view of the present land which is occupied by the petitioner, which again is missing.
6. The limited modification sought for by the petitioner is not opposed by the State Counsel.
7. The present MCC stands allowed. It is ordered that the order dated
10.01.2023 in WPC No. 93 of 2023 stands modified to the extent as indicated above.
8. After Paragraph 9, the following paragraphs shall also be read as under:- “10 Be that as it may, considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking note of the : (I) That it is peak winter season now. (ii) Petitioners are in possession of the said place for more than a decade. (iii) Petitioners claim that they are landless people and this is the only piece of land that they have in their possession. (iv) Government have schemes and welfare policies for providing land to the landless people and home to the homeless people.” 3
11. Under the given factual backdrop, in addition to the right of the petitioners to prefer an appeal against the order dated 28.09.2021, 28.09.2021 & 20.08.2020 respectively, if the law so permits before Appellate Authority, the petitioners are also at liberty to approach respondent No. 2 and also Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korba for allotment of alternative suitable land, if available, where the petitioners can be relocated and they can sustain their family and also can provide shelter to their family.”
9. The Registry is directed to take necessary steps in recalling the earlier order and to upload the modified corrected order.
10. Let a copy of this order be made part of records of WPC No. 93 of 2023
11.Accordingly, the present MCC stands allowed and disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Jyoti