Quashed

Prateek Khare v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC5 Mar 2011WP227/6580/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Board of Revenue's order that restored a Tehsildar's demarcation decision. The Court held the Board exceeded its jurisdiction and violated natural justice by failing to notice the petitioner during the demarcation process.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order passed by the Board of Revenue. Parties directed to appear before the Tehsildar on a specific date to complete demarcation within two months.

Prateek Khare Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

-/.

¶2

BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH GOURT ;OR GHHATTISGrARH AT BILASPUR •,,,..:":;.',^-;.,:'^'^^.:,::: 2^ : • :.^.,.::':./' /^.^; ^ WRIT PETITION ^-©-lN0; ^WS / '2010

¶3

PETITIONER: ^PRATEEKifflARE,;,.:;':;^.'^^ (Non-AppUeant No.,1. S/o.Shri Bharat Bihari'Khare,^agedf before Revenue Board) abbufe42 years, the ftien ResidenfoB F-10, Sale .Tax^ Cblony, " Raipur, Distnct .Raipur (C.G.), presently TesidentofE-l,; Shari.fi ^Nagar,v Behirid G6uravVa.tiKa,JG6urav?PatK, Raipur, Disfriet'Raipur (C.G.). ^ ^J \

¶4

VERSUS. RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF CHHATTTSGARH, • K 'lMon-Applicant No. 3 /. Through its Secretary, Goverrtmerit ' before Revenue Board) of Ghhattisgarh, 'Department^ ^of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya; Raipur (C.G.) ' ' ; ^^

¶5

^ >>M^^ ,^^x THE BOARDOFREVENUE, Through its Presideiit, Chhattisgarh' Revenue Board, Bilaspur (Circuit vA^y^" CourtRaipur) (C.G.) fc^//' »yr.^ —' Sa ^ (Applicant No.l 3, SHRI KAMAI. DIWAN, before Revenue Board) S/ o Gopal Dhar Diwan, Aged - 'Nof known, R/o - Azad Chowk,' Bramhanpara; ; Raipur, Distric^ RaipurfC.G.). ; ^ "4. (ApplicantNo. 2 SMT. RAJ SHRI.SHARMA, I before Revenue Board) W/o Vipin. Sharma, Aged - Not - known, R/o of^^Maitri ^ Nagar, ' Sundar Nagar, Raipiir, Districf ^ ^ Raipur (C.G.) ~. .."•..'• • ' ; ••'.". 'l , :*ff.. Ij^^Non-A^plicant^{No. 25} SHRISUNILKUMARVAID, i |^%bef6re Reyenue Board) S/o Bhawar Lal Vaid, Aged^- Not known, R/o - Sadar Bazar, Raipur -r.:^ (CG):/: ,.'„•., ,.., ..^.:: Presenfly residing at -; Sadar ©azarl, iis;'ii'hs Murigeli, Disti-ict Bilaspiir (C.G;) ^J| i^i:r:^ •Kiiit

¶6

gl.lgjt',

¶7

«H t81iS:i ^i^^^j W'5'i 'r'S^ ' : 'i^^j';- '^^ aSSBSMSi

¶8

WRITPETITION;UNDEKAR'FICLE2270FTHE CONSTITUTIQNQPINDIA

¶9

Bli B1

¶10

'i.lH

¶11

HIGH CX3URT OF C^HATTISCiSRil^TiBII^3SB

¶12

WRn'PETimQN;(227)No.6^

¶13

PETITIONER Prateek Khare

¶14

Versus

¶15

RESPONDENTS State of Ghhattisgarh and others

¶16

SBt- HQN'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J

¶17

PRESENT:-

¶18

Shri Ga^ara BhaAiun, Adw^cate, for the petitioner. Shri K^eni^a.'1!vnpa^,i'!'a3^l.s^w^^ 1. Shri^efcShaFma,^dv. the^ i^hri Rajendra Pradhan-„ . , AdygE£)iS |?:i?es0o:ndent.—,.^y^^....^^.^.^..^No. 5. y...^—„.„. . • •

¶19

^•'Ti;sS/;-" :•:"':• ••-.-•• •.•..'.•. • : : • ORAL ORDER (5-3-2Q11)

¶20

y m.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

Instant petition is directed agaiiist the order dated 30th Qctober, 2010 passed by the Board bfRevenye in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N;/ 14/R/A-I2/122/2009 whereby and whereunder the revision preferred by respondents No. 3 and 4 was allowed and the order dated 22-4-2009 passed by the Additional Collecfor, Raipur in Revenue CaseNo. 53/A-12/2007-08 wa^setaside.

¶23

Facts of the case in brief are that vide Annexure P-7, respondent No. 5 applied for demarcation of a pieGe of land bearing KhaLsra No. I41:/l area 6000 sq.ft. on the allegation that the idefttity and toeation d£ the said property is being disputed by tlie petifioner hei-ein and alsoj±iepetitioneristryingtotakepossessi6rioverthe saM land. IndisputaMy, the petition^ was not not^ The order pf demarcatidii was passed. After coming to . fcnow about above order, the getitionef preferred revision before the AdditiQnal Gollectnr along ^ith an application for condonation. of delay in Glirig of appeal. Ilaving found the petitioner was not noticed, the Additionat ColleGtor alknved the application <for condoria.tion of delay. The

revision preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the Board of Revenue. The Board ofRevenue held, the order 6f Tehsildar without noticing petitioner is contrary to fhe principles of naturaljustice.

¶29

The matter was then heard finally and vide its order dated 22-4-2009, the Additional Collector allowed petifioner's revision, remitted the matter to fhe Tehsildar for demareation afresh. The above order was again assailed by the respondents No. 3 and 4. The Board of Revenue vide impugned order allowed their revision and set aside fhe order of Additional Collector dated 22-42009.

¶30

Shri Bhaduri, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, the Board of Revenue had already held vide its order dated 6th November, 2008 that Tehsildar's order was contrary to the pnnciples of naturaljustice and therefore, the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue is on the face illegal and beyond the scope of revision under Section 50 of the Code.

¶31

On the other hand, Shri Pradhan, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 would submit, the petitioner failed to show his land is adjacent to land t>earing ICtiasra No. 141; on petitioner's application, his ^ land had alreaxly been dem.arcated in which it is foynd that the disputed land is a piece of land bearing Kllasra No. 141/1 andnotofKhasra No. 140/1 and 140/3 andasr such no prejudice is going to be caused tp the peiitioner and the fact of demarcation by the Tehsildar regarding land in question was well within the knowledge of the petitioner which is clear from the inemo of revision (Annexure R-5-1) filed by fhe petitioner before the Additional Collector.

¶32

6, I have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused the record. ;

Existence of dispute regarding location/identity of the land in question is clear frorri the application filed by the respondent No. 5 before the Tehsildar. The petitioner was also impleaded as a party-respondent in tUe demarcation application. Despite above facts,the petitioner was not noticed and the land was dem.areated behind the back of the-petitioner inasinuch as no opportuhify ofhearmg was afforded to the petitioner. This fact was affirffled by the Additional Collector, also by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 6-11-2008. In view of above, the order iinpugned is contraryto the order passed by the Board of Revenue itself on 6-11-2008 which is nbt proper. The Additional Collector has only directed for fresh deraarcation ofthe land in questton and it will in now way prejudice the interest of the respondents. Every person interested is required to be noticed.

¶37

In view of the above, in the considered opinion of this Court, leamed Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the order passed by the Additional Collector.

¶38

For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the order passed by the Board of Revenue is set aside. Parties are directed to remain preseFti before theTehsildaron 4-4-2011. The fr ... withinTehsildar .- a penodis . . directedof -. two ' ! monthsto .. complete „ from '- thatdemareation date. report

¶39

No order as to costs.

¶40

Sd/N.K. Agrawal Judge

Prateek Khare v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prateek Khare v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gandeshwar Pradhan Vs Ps.Netam and Ors.

Baldev Verma Vs State of Chhattisghar and Ors.

Bhula Vs Manharan Singh Thakur and Ors.

Tejram Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Ram Bai Tiwari and Ors, Vs Smt. Sudha Tiwari

Neetlal and Another Vs Sanjeet Kumar Bhaskar and Others