Disposed

Smt. Kiran Devi Agarwal and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC8 Aug 2022WP227/6762/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the validity of a 1992 lease deed granted without jurisdiction under a 1991 circular. The High Court directed revenue authorities to consider pending applications by the petitioners and the respondent under the 2019 Regularization Policy and fixed a two-month time limit for the decision.

What did the court decide?

Directed the revenue authority to consider pending applications under the 11.09.2019 policy and decide them within two months; granted liberty to file fresh representations within 15 days.

Smt. Kiran Devi Agarwal and Anr. Vs State of… — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WP227 No. 6762 of 2009

¶5

Smt. Kiran Devi Agarwal, Wife of Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, aged about 43 years, R/o Gandhi Chowk, Nevra, Tahsil Tilda, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.)

¶6

Smt. Manju Devi Agarwal, wife of Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal, aged about 45 years, R/o Gandhi Chowk, Nevra, Tahsil Tilda, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.)

¶7

---- Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

Ramesh Kumar, Son of Lahrumal, aged about 47 years, R/o Subhash Chowk, Nevra, Tehsil Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

___________________________ For Petitioners	_________ :	___________________________________________ Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate
For State	:	Mr. Lalit Jhangde, Dy. G.A.
For Respondent No.2	:	Mr. Shailesh Ahuja, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

08.08.2022

¶16

The petitioners have assailed order dated 24.09.2009 passed by the State of Chhattisgarh in Revenue Case No. 39/2002 whereby lease granted in favor of the petitioners by the Collector dated 17.02.1992 has been held without jurisdiction and null & void on the ground that on the date issuance of the lease the Collector was not having authority to issue such a lease deed.

¶17

The facts of this case are like that on 20.02.1992 lease deed pertaining to survey No. 244/3 area 2100 sq.ft. situated in Village-Nevra, District- Raipur (C.G.) was granted in favor of the petitioners and in revenue records names of the petitioners were recorded. In the year 1997 respondent No. 2 raised objection against grant of lease in favor of the petitioners and vide order dated

¶18

¶19

07.04.1997 the Additional Collector rejected the complaint moved by respondent No. 2. On 24.11.1999 the Collector Raipur admitted the representation of the respondent No. 2 and directed the authorities to take steps for cancellation of lease deeds granted in favor of the petitioners . The petitioners also filed representation before the Revenue Authorities including the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 24.09.2009 rejected representation of the petitioners holding that a circular was issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh bearing No. 6-210/7-2/B/91 dated 12.12.1991 whereby power of Collector to issue lease deeds was taken away. Though the lease deed was issued by the Additional Collector Raipur vide order dated 17.02.1992 but same was without Jurisdiction and null and void. Against the order passed by the State Government dated 24.09.2009 the present petition has been filed. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioners had filed an application for amendment and filed documents showing deposit of the lease rent in the year 2015 - 2016 to 2019-2020 in pursuance of demand raised by the Government Authorities. Further they have filed an application moved before the revenue authorities in pursuance of policy of State Government dated 11.09.2019 which deals with regurization of government encroached land in urban areas. According to this policy if any person has encroached over the government land, same can be settled after making payment of premium of 150% of the value of property.

¶20

The counsel for respondent has filed his return and submitted that the Additional Collector had no right to issue lease deed in favor of the petitioners and it was invalid and contrary to law. The respondent No. 2 has apprised this court that an objection was raised before the revenue authorities, & application was moved to allot the land in question in favor of Pujya Sindhi Samaj. Photographs of the site have been annexed to establish that at present the plot is laying vacant.

¶21

The counsel for the petitioners submit that, the plot was alloted to the petitioners in the year 1992 since then they are in possession, earlier house was constructed over the plot and they are still paying the premium to the

¶22

¶23

Government and same is evident from the documents annexed along with application for amendment. The counsel for the petitioner submits that if this Court finds that the lease deed was granted contrary to law then respondent authorities may be directed to consider their application moved on the basis of the policy of the State Government dated 11.09.2019 for settlement of the encroached plots in Urban areas which is pending consideration before the revenue authorities or petitioners may permitted to make fresh representation before the revenue authorities to decide their claim on the basis of policy dated 11.09.2019.

¶24

On the other hand counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioners. They vehemently argued that the Additional Collector had no right to grant lease deed in favor of the petitioners in the year 1992 as prior to that date, decision was taken by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh whereby the power of Collector to grant lease was taken away in Urban areas. Therefore, the lease deeds which were granted by the Additional Collector are null and void. The counsel for respondent No. 2 further submits that the Pujya Sindhi Samaj has already moved an application to allot the disputed plot on lease and application moved by him is still pending before the revenue authorities.

¶25

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. From the order Annexure-P/1 issued by the State government dated 24.09.2009 it appears that on 12.12.1991 a circular was issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh whereby Collectors were excluded from issuance of granting temporary and permanent lease or its renewal pertaining to Nazul land but without taking into consideration the above circular the Additional Collector Raipur had granted lease deed in favor of the petitioners on 17.02.1992 which can't be held valid. Therefore, there is no need to upset the finding recorded by respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that their applications claiming right over the disputed plot is pending before the revenue authorities. The petitioners have moved application in accordance with the policy dated 11.09.2019 for regularization of encroachment of

¶26

¶27

Government land in Urban areas whereas the respondent No. 2 has also submitted that his application for allotment of the disputed plot is pending before the revenue authorities. In this situation it would be apt to direct the revenue authorities to consider applications moved by the petitioners and respondent No. 2 in accordance with the policy dated 11.09.2019 and other relevant circulars. If the petitioners and respondent No.2 have not moved any application before authorities they are at liberty to move proper applications /representations before the revenue authorities within a period of 15 days from receipt of a copy of this order and the such revenue authority is directed to decide the applications/representations within outer limit of two months strictly in accordance with law.

¶28

As per above discussion the petition is disposed of.

¶29

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶30

vaishali

Smt. Kiran Devi Agarwal and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kiran Devi Agarwal and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niranjan Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aasan @ Aasha Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mrs. Sufiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Saurabh Agrawal Vs Indusind Bank Limited

Girdhar Prasad Gupta Vs Gopal Prasad Gupta

Smt. Sarla Raman Jogi Vs (a) Rajiv Jogi