The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition challenging a communication directing the PWD to take over possession of the Raigarh Club. The Court held that factual disputes regarding ownership and land status must be decided by a civil court and quashed the writ.
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.
I
®
$Ingm Bench
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH coURT OF CHEATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CE)
WRIT pETITION [Cl No? g5 OF 2012
PETITIONERS ——-—
——-— 1/1/Raigarh Club, Raigarh, District ~— Raigarh (C.G.), Through : The / Secretary, Anil Agravval, Raigarh é‘%‘3I9V My ” Club; Raigarh, District -— Raigarh (ca) ,wé’ym‘ixi/f ‘ "w v 21/Ani1 Agrawal S/c Dr. D.c. 63“."..“f4‘‘ aged about 4o years, R/o MIG-2, Wax ’ Mukut Nagar, Chakradharnagar, Raigarh, District — Raigarh (C.G.)
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS 1/1State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Public Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, / 2] The Collector, Raigarh, District ~ Raigarh (cc)
3](The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Raigarh (C.G.)
/ 4] The City Magistrate, Raigarh, District —~ Raigarh (C.G.) / 5] The City Superintendent of Police, Raigarh, District -— Raigarh (C.G.)
WRIT PETITION INDIA FOR ISSUENCEUNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF DIRECTION OF WRIT OR WRITS ORDER OR ORDERS, OR DIRECTIONS UNDER NCIRCUMDTANCES OF THE CASE. THE FACTS’ AND 1. gARTICULARS ABOUT THE PETITIONEMS} :
HIGH COURT OF‘CHHATI'ISGARH ’ BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO 785 OF 2012
P ETITIONER . . Raigarh Club & Another ‘ Versus
RESPONDENTS State of Chhattlsgarh & Others
(Wnt petltlonunderArticle226oftheConstitutionofIndla)
Single Bench Hon ble Shn Satlsh K Agmhotn J
Pfesent :— Shn Gautam Bhadun & Shn S K Tlwan Advocates for the ' petmoner Shn Sumesh Baja], Govt Advocate for the State ORDER . . (Passedonthis15‘dayofNovember 201 2) Heard Iearneq counsel for the parties 1: Challenge In this petition Is to the communrcatron dated 1 12-2011 (Annexure P/1) of the Col|ector-cum—Drstr|ct Magistrate, Ratgarht . whereunder the'CoHector has directed the Executive Engiheer, Public Works Department (for short“the PWD"), to take ove'r the possessionofthe.RaigarhClub (for‘short “the Club”) on account of illegal and anti social activities committed by the an'ti social. elements. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Club‘ islvery old Club‘,'Which was admittedly managed by the FWD, as is evident from the maintenance khasra forithe year 2008-09and‘all the members, who are enjoying thefacilities provided :in the Club, : 'Admittedly, are owners as per the registration the Collector is the ‘ Chairman of the Club The Club Is duly registered on 10 11 2004 .. ' by the Registrar of Scoletles 3. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned communication dated 1-12-2011 is bad in law, as it amounts totaking over the 'lt possessionoftheclub which'cannot be done by the Collector is‘ also painted out that the rent was depos1ted by the Club In the Treasury i On the other hand learned counsei appearing for the State submits that there is no dispute that the land and the Club is in the ' ownership of the State Government being nazul land and by the impugned communication the management of the Club has been ' - handed over to the PWD haVing regard to the fact that the Club was being destroyed on account of anti social actiVities' and creating law & order problem.
" . Having considered the submissions' advanced b'y the learned counsel appearing for the partiesand perusalofthe record; this Court cannot decide the disputed facts in respect of ownership of the Club as' well as the land though primafacie it appears that the PWD authorities have been maintaining the Club On perusal of the documents produced before the Court it is. manifest that while a dispute was raised earlier by one Shri Arun Kumar Beriwal and others against the Chairman of the Club before ' the Registrar Firms & Societies Chhattisgarh the Registrar by - order dated 31 12‘2005 (Annexure P/8) has clearly observed that the Collector had submitted that the building of the Club was in the g 'ownership of the State Government and the maintenance] management was done by the PWD. lt is further observed that there is no ban on entry of other members of the Club. Be that as it may, the question of ownership and others cannot be‘ deCIded on the basis of few documents and affldaVIts ThUS the factual disputes can be deCIded by the competent Jurisdictional CIVII'v Court only Therefore liberty is reserved to the petitioners to take recourse to appropriate forum if so adVised ‘ - So far as regulation of the law and order is concerned smce the PWD itself is maintaining and managing the Club, there is no . illegality or irregularity in maintaining the same. Even othenivise, the Collector himself is the Chairman of the Club, who is competent to take appropriate steps in this regard.
X
As a sequel, the writ petition, sans substratum, is liable to be and is ,M
hereby dismissed. No or'der asto costs‘.
G 0wri
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the Collector's direction to transfer Club possession has a cause of action.
Raigarh Club & Another
State of Chhattisgarh
Shri Satish K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
