Allowed

Vijay Budhia v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jul 2014WPC/711/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a Collector's order restraining sale deed registration. The Court held that where land is recorded in the purchaser's name, the Collector cannot block registration pending enquiry without initiating proceedings under the Land Revenue Code. The order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication restraining the Deputy Registrar from registering sale deeds was declared illegal and set aside. Revenue authorities are directed to initiate appropriate proceedings under S

Vijay Budhia Vs State of Chhattisgarh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

af ^ers I.. ^' SINOLE BENCH

¶2

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION rd No. T U I^S^F- ^0| O

¶4

PETITIONER: Vijay Budhia S/o Late S. N. Budhia aged about 48 R/o "Sugandha", years, Transport Nagar, Korba, Tahsil & District: Korba, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS

¶5

RESPONDENTS: 01. State of Chhattisgarh, Through their
Principal secretary, Revenue 85 Disaster
Management Departments, Mantralaya,
Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, C.G.
/ /
j^/yy 02. The Collector, Korba, Chhattisgarh.
03. Mr. Ashok Agrawal IAS, presently posted
.^/ as Collector, Korba, Chhattisgarh.
04. The Nazul Officer; Korba, Chhattisgarh
^s>y
^•' ^••y^'" ^' through office of the Collector 85 Distritt^
Magistrate, Korba, Chhattisgarh.
€•"^,^'
WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

¶6

¶7

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR

¶8

Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manjndra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

W.P.(C)No.711/2010

PETITIONER

Vijay Budhia

Versus

RESPONDENTS

State of Chhattisgarh and others

¶15

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶16

Present: - Shri Rajkamal Singh, counsel for the petitioner/s. Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State / respondents 1, 2 and 4. Shri H.B.Agrawal, senior counsel along with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3.

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

(Passed on 15th ofJuly, 2014)

¶19

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the authority of the Collector in issuing a prohibitory order to the Deputy Registrar, Korba on 10/09/09. By the impugned order, the Collector has directed the Deputy Registrar not to permit any sale and purchase of land situated in specified khasra numbers.

¶20

Petitioner's case is that the petitioner purchased land admeasuring 4.04 acres situated in khasra nos.92, 93, 98, 142, 143, 162/2, 181 and 201

¶21

(•^{^}

¶22

.""•;^. i N J ^.. !L .gi .,'"!

¶23

in Village - Rampur, Tahsil - Korba. According to the petitioner, as the lands were situatedin an unsurveyed village, demarcation was carried out on his application by revenue officials and only after demarcation and certification, the petitioner purchased land through registered sale deed. Later on, the lands were also diverted in the year 2006. The petitioner intended to develop a residential colony and applied to various authorities. The Additional Collector, Korba granted NOC (Annexure P/2), the Corporation granted permission on 29/04/08 (Annexure P/3) and thereafter, the Additional Collector vide prder dated 04/10/08 granted permission to the petitioner. However, before the petitioner could execute sale deeds in respect of the plots to intending purchasers, the Collector restrained Deputy Registrar vide impugned order from execution and registration of sale deeds. It is this order which is under challenge.

¶24

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order issued by the Collector is without any authority of law. As long as the land stands recorded in the name of the petitioner in all revenue records, the earlier demarcation reports remain intact and there are no orders passed by any of the competent authority withdrawing permission passed by any of the authority nor there being any order of eviction of the petitioner, the Collector had no jurisdiction to restrain the Sub-Registrar registering sale deeds presented before him by the petitioner in the matter of sale and purchase of plot in the colony developed by the petitioner. He further contends that the petitioner, in order to develop a colony, has

¶25

¶26

^—^':.,.. *.-.t^— •^,r-

¶27

obtained necessary permission from all concerned, including the Collector himself, therefore, the impugned order be quashed.

¶28

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that a large chunk of forest land in unsurveyed village- Rampur was transferred from Forest department to the Revenue department in the year 1976. Out of total 607 acres so transferred, land has been earmarked and allotted for various administrative purposes. A report was submitted before the Collector by Superintendent, Land Records on 10/11/09. This report was prepared on the basis of demarcation conducted by a team under the guidance of Superintendent of Land Records on 29/10/09. That report indicates that the lands, which have been recorded in the name of the petitioner, are contained in certain khasra numbers which have not been mentioned in the map obtained from nazul department. Thus, there are certain aspects with regard to encroachment on Government land for which, the Collector directed enquiry to be made. In this background, the Collector directed the Deputy Registrar not to allow sale and purchase on land situated in disputed khasra numbers due to pendency of enquiry.

¶29

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that respondent No.3 has been involved without there being any material to demonstrate that respondent No.3 acted either with vengeance or otherwise malafide against the petitioner. It is submitted that whatever has been done by respondent No.3 is in bonafide discharge of his official duty to protect the

¶30

interest of the State and the land belonging to the State.

¶31

The impugned order appears to have issued by the Collector in the wake of an enquiry with regard to location of the Government land and that ofthe petitioner's land which he claims to occupy in his ownership and title by virtue of purchaser under registered sale deed in respect of land situated in khasra numbers indicated in para 8.3 of the writ petition. The material placed on record by the State also show that 607 acres of land were transferred from Forest Department to Revenue Department and later on, demarcation was carried out by a team of revenue officers on 29/10/09 giving rise to some dispute with regard to location of Government land, that of the petitioner and one Anupam Chakrabarty.

¶32

If it is the allegation of the State authorities that either the petitioner or his predecessors encroached upon the Government land, remedy lies in taking appropriate proceedings under Section 248 of the Land Revenue Code. If the demarcation earlier made and on the basis of which sale in favour of the petitioner was effected is being disputed, the proper course of action would have been to draw appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Land Revenue Code. hlowever, without drawing any such proceeding under the provisions of the Land Revenue Code, a direction has been issued to withhold execution of sale deed. Such a course of action is not permissible under the law. As long as land is recorded in the name of the petitioner under various revenue records, the

¶33

¶34

^^^^
.^
Ma
1.^
^M
'%"^^^^

¶35

petitioner is entitled to enter into sale and purchase, provided that he has fulfilled and complied with other requirement of law if any, in the matter of sale and purchase. Learned State counsel could not point out, under which provision of law of Land Revenue Code, the Collector has issued such direction.

¶36

In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and cannot operate to restrain the registering authority from registering sale of land.

¶37

The petitioner, on certain apprehension, which are not made out, has impleaded the concerned revenue officer as party in his personal capacity. The allegations of malafide are, however, blissfully vague. Therefore, to that extent, the petitioner is not correct that the Collector acted either with vengeance or with malafide intention against the petitioner.

¶38

In the result, the impugned communication is declared illegal and set aside. However, this order shall not come in the way of the revenue authorities in drawing appropriate proceedings if according to them, there is any encroachment on Government land by the petitioner. The petition is accordingly allowed. No orders as to cost. __^-——-

¶39

»--"&"*"""

¶40

Deepti

¶41

Vijay Budhia v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Budhia 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

Bankat Singh Rajput Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Raman Bihari Kannoje Vs Regional Transport Authority

State of Chhattisgarh Vs the Board of Revenue and Ors.

Jagriti Mahila Swa Sahayata Samooh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Sanjay Singh Vs Regional Transport Authority and Anr.

Dilesh Kumar Chandrakar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.