Single bench oral order dismissing a writ petition challenging the refusal of the Board of Revenue to set aside an order denying Bhoomiswami rights. The Court found no illegality as the land was recorded as service land and not saved to the petitioner as personal property.
Writ petition dismissed at the admission stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
s'.ngteBaich
r^
IN THE HIGH GGURT OF GHHATTlSGARH AT BILASPUR rc.G.v W.P.227NO.'%(64/Q/2009 PETITIONER ---CharandaSt__S/o. Bahoran Das ?vsytf.^^ Panik§<)u"il^'-~ Village-Bhanwtara, Tahsil-Pamgarh, District JanjgirChampa (C.G.)-
PETITIONER
?vsytf.^^
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS :1.^' StateofChhattiSgarh,Through: the
p^giptte"^-,^ ^. /;^ Secretary, Department of Reyenue,
-..••"1^'^t-^
l'^J"^ D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)
^<^y~
^y'^^'" ..-^ 2. Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh,
L.'**1 Bilaspur (C.G.)
3." The COllector, Janjgir-Champa,
DistrictJanjgir-Champa(C.G.)
4. Sub-DiyiSional OfRcer, Pamgarh,
DistrictJanjgir-Champa(C.G.)
5. << Aagardas, S/o. Jhangaldas Panika,
R/o. Village- Bhanwatara, Tahsil-
Pamgarh, District - Janjgir-Champa
WRIT PETITION UNDERARTlCLE2270FtHlE GONSTITUflON OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR \
Sinale Beneh: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishr6
Writ Petnion (227) No,3S40/2009
PETfTIONER Charandas Plaintiff
RESPONDENTS Defendants
Shri RaghvendraPradhan, counselforthepetitiMier. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State.
WRIT PETrriON UNDER ARTICI.£227 OF THE CONSTrrUTION OF ^ tNNA ' • ••:::', ^'r-
ORALORDER (09.03.2010)
Challenge inthis petition uhder Arttele 227 of the Constitution of
7"
India is to the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 20-11-^07 (Annexure P/1) thereby refusir^ to set-aside the appetiate order passed by the Collector, Janjgir-Champa on 14-11-^K» (Annexure P/2). By this order of Coilector, the order passed by the Sub Diwsional Officer (R) Pamgarh on OS-re-MOS (Annexure P/3) was set-aside and it was hekl that neither the petitioner nor r^pondent No.5 are entitted be declared as Bhoomiswami with respect to the subject iand bearing Khasra Nos. 129, 235, 260 and ^4 tota! area 9.98 Aeres at villesge Bhanwtara, Tahsil - Pamgarh, District - Janjgir-Champa. Af. 1 ' : ,. (2) One Bahoran, the father of the petitioner was a Kotwar of the
village and was in occupation of subject land as Muafi land atthattime
from the hands of Malgujar. According to the petitioner the name of his
father was recorded in the Jamabandi ofthe year 1938-^, therefore the order passed by the S.D.O. granting Bhoomiswami right in favour
KS'
^»«<*B>s~-...-;a.
^
.3.-
of the petitioner shoiik} not have been interfered with by the Collectoi arri fhe Board of Revenue.
(3) I have perused the record and eamea counsei
(4) Tte Board of Revenue has recorded this finding fhat the pet'rtioner has fvA been appointed ss Kotwar at any Though the respondent No.5 was appointed as Kotwar was not in possesston of ttie iand on the date ot commer
Land Revenue Code 1959, neither the petitiooer nor the No.5 can be declared as Bhoomi&wami with regard to land under Section 57(2) of the Chhattisgarh iand Revenue 3, 1^9,
(5) The Coltector as weil as the Board of Revenue has found ftat though the saki Bahoran acted as Kotwar till the year 1972-1973, the petitioner Charandas was never appointed as Kotwar and that he j¬ in possesston of the iand also. As per revenue records Bahoran he!d the land as service land.
(6) On perusa! of the impigned orders this Court finds that the passed by the Coilector and Board of Revenue have been passed after a^reciating the entire facts and the Saw applicabie thereon.Ms. The question• regaiding! conferTal of Bhoomiswami rights to the Kotwar on a land whteh was held by the Kotwar as Maufi land ean be gone into only when sufricient material te furnished by the person ciaiming such rght wjth regard to the nature of !and held and mentioned in the Jamabandi, as to whether such property <ras spared fromthe"^ ^being vested in the State atthetime ofabolition ofproprieteir's ryht under the jetevant provisions of the Chhattisgarh Abolition
liliiii! W'l
!i"-\
B?:
^
Proprietary Right^^Estates, lyiahals, Atienated Lands) Aet, 1950 and as to whether siwh land was directgd to be settied in the name of Kotwar who was servioig the prtynetw/Ma^ujar at that point of time, because if the tend was recorded as servtee land and was not saved to the Kotwar as his pereona! prqserty on account of personal services rendered to fhe ExMalgujar, the property cannot be declared to be the thoomiswami land oftfeEx Kotwar.
ln the of this Gourt the Coll«;toras well as the Board of (7) Revenue has notcQmmitted any illegality by hokling that neither the respondent No.5 can be
respecttottie subjeQtertd; Thewrit petition being devoid ofsubstance is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.
Sd//- ...
prashantKumarMishra
^Judge
EB!1
B:®Aal
'SaSsti^^SSSf^.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Collector and Board of Revenue committed illegality in refusing to set aside the Collector's previous order declaring the petitioner as Bhoomiswami of the subject land.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Charandas
State of Chhattisgarh
Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh
Collector, Janjgir-Champa
Sub-Divisional Officer, Pamgarh
Aagardas
Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
