Dismissed

Jugeshwar Ram and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC8 Aug 2012WPPIL/36/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A four-judge bench dismissed a public interest litigation challenging a government notification that added the word 'Ramanujganj' to the name of Balrampur district. The court held that Section 13 of the M.P. (C.G.) Land Revenue Code, 1959, mandating publication of proposals for inviting objections, does not apply to the mere addition of words to a district name without altering its limits or exist

What did the court decide?

Writ petition filed as public interest litigation is dismissed summarily with no order as to costs.

Jugeshwar Ram and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

¶3

1.	Jugeshwar Ram S/o. Late Bodha,
	Aged about 60 years, Former President of Janpad, Balrampur, R/o Village Turidih, Post- Bairampur, Tehsil & Distt. Balarampur (C.G.).
2.	Rustam Ali Ansari S/o. Abdu! Gafur Ansari Aged about 55 years, Member of Sarwadaiiya
	Manch, Balrampur, R/o. Balrampur, Tah. & Distt. Salrampur (C.G.).
3.	Kripashankar S/o. Gopiram, aged about 32 years, Member of Sarwadaliya Manch, Balrampur,
	R/o. Balrampur, Tah. & Distt. Balrampur (C.G.).
4.	Kaiiash Dwivedi, S/o. Shri Kodu Dwivedi, Aged about 36 years, Member of Sarwadaliya Manch, Balrainpur, R/o. Balrampur, Tah & Distt. Balrampur (C.G.).
	State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Secretary, Department of
	Revenue and Department of
	Disaster Management, D.K.S.
	ihawan Mantraiaya, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.).
	State of Chhattisgarh Through: the Secretary, Department of
	General Administration, D.K.S.
	Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur, Distt. Raipur- (C.G.).
	Coilector Balrampur, Balrampur (C.G.).

Ey"

—T

"ESa.
I
'a /f' 3.

Pandey, Advocate for the loners. General with Mr. N.K. hta, Panel Lawyer for the on advance copy.

¶9

Heard on admission.

¶10

2 The petitioners are praying for quashment of notification 28.03.2012 whereby the State Government has added word inj" along with word "Balrampur" in the notificati 27.12.2011 whereby many new districts, including District "Bal were created under Section 13 ofthe M.P. (C.G.) Land Revenue Code, 1959 referred to as "the Code, 1959").

¶11

3 In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 13 of the Code, 1959, the State Government issued a notification dated 8 of September, 2011 regarding creation of 9 new districts in the State of Chhattisgarh. Objections were called in accordance with the provisions of the Code, 1959. Thereafter, by notification dated 27 of December, 2011, 9 new districts were created and their names and areas (Tahsils) were notified In the notification of the said date. At Sr. No. 9, "Balrampur" was created as a new district and various Tahsils were jncluded therein which are mentioned in coiumn No. 5 of the notification. Later on, by the impugned notification dated 28 of March, 2012 (Annexure-P-1), word "Ramanujganj" has been added afterword •" in the said notification.

¶12

A.N. Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behaif of the petitioners has argued that without foiiowing the procedure laid down under Section !3 of the Code, 1959, issuance of direct notiflcation regarding adding such word in the name of a district was not in accordance with law.

¶13

5 We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

¶14

Section 13 ofthe Code 1959 readsas under-

¶15

sub-divisions and tahsils.-—(1) The State Government may create divisions comprising of such districts as it may deem fit and may abolish or alter the limits of such divisions.

¶16

(2) The State Government may alter the limits of any districts or tahsi! and may create new, or abolish existing districts or tahsils, and may divide and district into sub-divisions and may alter the limits of or abolish, any sub-division:

¶17

Provided that the State Government before passing any orders under this Section on any proposal to alter the limits of any division or district or tahsii or to create new or abolish existing divisions, districts or tahsil, shall publish in the prescribed form such proposals for inviting objections and shall take into consideration any objection to such proposal.

¶18

(3) Subject to the orders of the State Government under sub-section (2), every tahsll shall be deemed to be a sub-division ofadistrict."

¶19

A bare perusai ofthe above provisions of Section 13 would show that it provides power to the State Go'/ernment to alter, create or abollsh divisions, districts, sub-divisions and tahsils. Sub-Section (2) provides that the State Government may alter the limits of any district and may create a new district or abolish an existing district and may divide any district into sub-divisions. Proviso to Sub-Section (2) makes

¶20

^' '\ •

¶21

it ciear that the State Government before passing any order under Section 13 on any proposal to alter the iimits of district or to create new or abolish existing districts shall publish in the prescribed form such proposal for Inviting objections and shall take into consideration any objection to such proposal.

¶22

¶23

. Pandey has argued that in the matter of notification dated 28.03.3012, no such proposal was published bythe State Government. We are of the view that only for adding some word in the name of any district, no such proposai was required at ail. Proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 13 of the Code, 1959 creates obligation on the State Government to publish a proposal in particular instances iike aiteration limits of any division or district or tahsil or for creation or abolition of existing divisions districts and tahsils and not for adding any word in the name of district division or tahsil. The words llke "such proposals" used in proviso to Sub-Section (2) are of great significance and they ciearly communicate that they co-relate to:the events of 'alteration', 'creation' or 'abolition' of the divisions, districts and tahsils as the case may be. Thus, in no manner the provisions of Section 13 are appiicable in case of adding some word in the name of a newiy created district under Section 13 of the Code, 1959.

¶24

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in the writ petition. The writ petition, fiied as public interest litigation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.

¶25

No order as to cost.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge

¶28

Sd/Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge

Jugeshwar Ram and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jugeshwar Ram and Ors. 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

Jaisingh Vs the State of M.P.

Kartikram Vs the State of M.P.

Laldhar Gond Vs State of C.G.

Jugu Jain @ Vijay Kumar Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Commissioner CUSTOMand Central Exise Vs M/S Simplex Engg.andFOUNDRY Works Ltd.

D.k.rajak Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.