Chattisgarh High Court
Muni Ram (Dead) Through Lrs vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 March, 2022
Author: Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Bench: Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 2235 of 2015
• Muni Ram (Dead) Through Lrs. Nil, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
1(i) - Smt. Pushpa Kanti Patel D/o Late Muni Ram Naik, W/o Tosh Lal
Patel, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Samkera, Block Tamnar, District
Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
1(ii) - Smt. Kamla Patel D/o Late Muni Ram Naik, Aged About 42 Years
W/o Saroj Kumar Patel, R/o Village Dhanigaon, Tehsil Barakela, District-
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
1(iii) - Tika Ram Naik S/o Muni Ram Naik Aged About 40 Years R/o
Village Gindola, Tehsil Kharsiya, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
1(iv) - Smt. Gaitri Patel, D/o Late Muni Ram Naik Aged About 37 Years
W/o Ram Gopal Patel, R/o Village Nawapara, Tahsil- Kharsiya, District-
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
1(v) - Ramadhar Naik, S/o Muni Ram Naik, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Village Gindola, Tehsil Kharsiya, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
2. Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3. Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
4. Sub Divisional Offficer Revenue, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh,
District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
----Respondent
For Petitioners - Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Shri Dhaniram Patel, Advocate.
For State - Shri Rahul Jha, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order on Board 15-03-2022
1. Heard.
2. It is submitted that the petitioners' land bearing Khasra No.607, 612, 608, 613 measuring 4 acres were declared surplus by respondent No.3 in order dated 26-09-2005 under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Ceiling on -2- Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 and the land was vested with the respondent State. This order was challenged before the Board of Revenue which was upheld by the order dated 25-01-2008. The petitioners filed WP227 No.3682/2008. The High Court by order dated 14-07-2008 set aside the order dated 25-01-2008 passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh and remanded the case to the Board of Revenue to decide the case afresh. The Board of Revenue has decided the appeal afresh by order dated 15-09-2009 by allowing the appeal and directing restoration of four acres of land to the petitioners. The petitioners have made several applications to the Collector, Raigarh praying for restoration of possession of the land which has been ordered by the Board of Revenue, but the order of the Revenue Board has not been executed. It is submitted that the land declared surplus were alloted to some beneficiaries during pendency of the litigation, therefore, the same is required to be reversed. Hence, it is prayed that appropriate orders be passed.
3. The State counsel representing the respondents No.1, 3 and 4 opposes the submission and submits that the land that was declared surplus has been already allotted to some beneficiaries, therefore, without hearing the said beneficiaries no orders can be passed. The petition may be disposed off.
4. Considered on the submissions. As it appears that there is order of the Board of Revenue dated 15-09-2009 which has not been challenged by either the State or by any other party, therefore, this order has attained finality and it needs to be executed. In the order dated 15-09-2009 there is direct order, that possession of the petitioners on four acres of land be restored which was declared surplus. It is duty of respondent No.3 to execute this order. The petitioners are granted liberty to file an application before respondent No.3 for restoration of the land in their favour, which may involve cancellation of the allotment to the beneficiaries, correction of revenue records and also restoration of possession. Respondent No.3 is directed to draw proceeding on -3- the application filed by the petitioners and decide the same at the earliest, preferably within a period of six months.
5. The petition stands disposed off.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Aadil