Allowed

Jitendra Kumar Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Nov 2022WP227/84/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the Board of Revenue's order setting aside the Commissioner's decision to uphold the petitioner's mutation. The court quashed the Board's order and restored the Commissioner's decision based on a respondent's admission regarding land area, directing a future demarcation. This is ok. ok. ok. ok.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Board of Revenue dated 30.12.2016 is set aside and order of Commissioner dated 01.04.2016 is upheld. Liberty granted for demarcation of lands.

Jitendra Kumar Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Landlord and Tenant | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 84 of 2017

¶3

Jitendra Kumar Agrawal, S/o Late Brijbhushan Agrawal, aged about 48 years, R/o Near Sarvodaya Hospital, Dubey Colony, Mova, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶4

---- Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

Collector, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

Tahsildar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Gram Seva Samiti, a registered Society, through its Secretary Shri Ajay Tiwari, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

______________________________________ For Petitioner :	_______________________ Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate.
For State/Respondent Nos.1 to 3.:	Mr.Ravipal Maheshwari, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent No.4 :	Mr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶13

Order On Board

¶14

11/11/2022

¶15

This petition has been preferred by the Petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 30.12.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by Board of Revenue passed in Revenue Revision Case No. RN/14/R/A-6/112/2016, whereby the order passed by Commissioner Raipur (C.G.) dated 01.04.2016 (Annexure P-18) in case No. 360/v-6/2013-14 has been set aside and the order of Collector dated 10.05.2010 (Annexure P-10) has been upheld.

¶16

Facts of the case are that a land bearing Khasra No. 299/1d total area 8.24 acres was originally belongs to Ramavtar Lal, Vishnu Prasad Saw, Saumitra Lal. From the above persons, one Vinayak Prasad purchased so many lands including land bearing Khasra No. 299/1d. Thereafter, part of land of Khasra No. 299/1d admeasuring area 4.12 acres was purchased by one Sitaram from Vinayak Prasad and one Ramdulare Ram Agrawal purchased the remaining part of the said land i.e. area 4.12 acres vide sale deed dated 15.10.1957. Thereafter, Respondent No.4 Gram Seva Samiti purchased the land through registered sale deed dated 16.11.1961 from Sitaram. After the death of Ramdulare Ram Agrawal, name of his legal heirs including Lakhanlal was brought on record in respect of property purchased by Ramdulare Ram Agrawal.

¶17

Lakhanlal son of Ramdulare Ram Agrawal along with other legal heirs of Ramdulare Ram Agrawal sold various lands including Khasra No. 299/1d to Brijbhushan Lal Agrawal vide registered sale deed dated 20.01.1965 (Annexure P-2). Brijbhushan Lal Agrawal vide registered sale deed dated 03.05.1965, sold the entire lands to his own mother namely Ved Bai. Thereafter, Ved Bai executed gift deed dated 19.07.1968 in favour of Brijbhushan Lal Agrawal. After the death of Brijbhushan Lal Agrawal and Ved Bai, the family arrangement arrived between the family members i.e. the legal heirs of Brijbhushan Lal Agrawal and Khasra No. 299/1d and certain other properties were fall in share of the Petitioner.

¶18

The Petitioner got recorded his name in revenue records and the land bearing Khasra No. 299/1d/3 area 0.627 hectares was recorded in his name. Respondent No.4 Gram Seva Samiti challenged the said order of mutation before Sub-Divisional Officer and vide its order dated 02.12.2008, set aside the order of mutation. Against the said order of Sub-Divisional Officer, a revision was preferred by the Petitioner before Commissioner Raipur (C.G.). Respondent No.4 also made complaint on administration side to the Collector. The Collector vide its order

¶19

dated 29.11.2008 set aside the order of mutation without affording any opportunity to the Petitioner.

¶20

The Petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court. In Writ Petition(C) No.6906/2008, this Court set aside the order of Collector dated 29.11.2008 and the matter was remanded back to the Collector to pass a fresh order after hearing both the parties.

¶21

On 10.05.2010 vide Annexure P-10, the Collector again passed the same order and set aside the order of mutation passed in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner again challenged that order before this Court, in Writ Petition (227) 6332/2010, this Court allowed the petition and parties were granted liberty to make submission before the Commissioner in pending revision case filed by the Petitioner.

¶22

Thereafter, the Commissioner vide its order dated 01.04.2016 allowed the revision preferred by the Petitioner. Respondent Nos.3 & 4 again challenged order of the Commissioner before the Board of Revenue, vide impugned order dated 30.12.2016 (Annexure P-1), the Board of Revenue allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Commissioner dated 01.04.2016. Hence, this petition.

¶23

In their reply, Respondent No.4 submits that they are the owner of Khasra No. 299/1d Patwari Halka No.109 Raipur (C.G.) and they had purchased the said land vide sale deed dated 16.11.1961 (Annexure R-4.1) from Sitaram.

¶24

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner referring the sale deed dated 16.11.1961 (Annexure R-4.1) submits that the sale deed shows that Sitaram sold total 3 pieces of land to Respondent No.4 i.e. Khasra No.268 area 0.067 acres, Khasra No.298 and piece of Khasra No.299/1. It is submitted by the Counsel that Annexure R-4.1 shows that total area of both the Khasra Nos. i.e. 298 & piece of Khasra No. 299/1 has been mentioned as area 2.82 acres. As the Khasra No.298 was

¶25

admeasuring only 0.49 acres as per the Jamabandi records, therefore, if 0.49 acres would be minus from 2.82 acres then it comes 2.33 acres meaning thereby only 2.33 acres of Khasra No.299/1 was purchased by Respondent No.4 through sale deed dated 16.11.1961 (Annexure R-4.1), therefore, the claim of Respondent No.4 that they have purchased the entire land of Khasra No. 299/1d is wrong. It is further submitted by the Counsel that lands which were mutated in the name of the Petitioner clearly shows that the said land was purchased by ancestors of the Petitioner and in a family arrangement, the land has been obtained by the Petitioner. Since, the land which has been purchased by the ancestors of the Petitioner is separate from the land which was purchased by Respondent No.4 from Sitaram, therefore, the name of the Petitioner was rightly mutated in revenue records. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is not sustainable.

¶26

Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 (Gram Seva Samiti) has categorically made his statement before this Court that Respondent No.4 has nothing to do with the sale deed executed in favour of Brijbhushan Agrawal father of the Petitioner executed by Lakhanlal and others on 20.01.1965, they are only concerned with their 2.33 acres of land of Khasra No.299/1d purchased from Sitaram vide registered sale deed dated 16.11.1961, however, the only dispute will remain between the parties with regard to demarcation of lands.

¶27

Looking to the above submission made by learned Counsel for Respondent No.4, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that as the Counsel for Respondent No.4 categorically made his statement and admitted the fact that Respondent No.4 have purchased only 2.33 acres of land of Khasra No.299/1d and they have no objection if the remaining land of Khasra No.299/1d which has been purchased by ancestors of the Petitioner, mutated in the name of Petitioner, therefore, it is submitted by the Counsel that this petition may be disposed of quashing the order passed by the Board of Revenue and

¶28

upholding the order passed by the Commissioner. It is further submitted by him that as submitted by Counsel for Respondent No.4, only dispute remains between the parties with regard to the demarcation of lands of both the parties. Liberty may be granted to the parties to make an application for demarcation of land before the competent authority and the competent authority may be directed to decide the same in accordance with law.

¶29

Considering the submissions made by learned Counsel appearing for both the parties, particularly on the basis of categorical statement and admission made by Respondent No.4 that the Respondent No.4 only claiming land admeasuring area 2.33 acres of Khasra No.299/1d and they have no objection to mutate the name of the Petitioner for remaining part of land bearing Khasra No.299/1d which the Petitioner has obtained through his family settlement (which was earlier purchased by ancestors of the Petitioner). The impugned order dated 30.12.2016 passed by the Board of Revenue and findings recorded by the Board of Revenue being perverse are set aside and the Order of Commissioner Raipur (C.G.) dated 01.04.2016 Annexure P-18 is upheld. As submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent No.4, they would be at liberty to make an application for demarcation of their lands before the competent authority and if such application would be made, the competent authority will decide the same in accordance with law in presence of both the parties.

¶30

Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of.

¶31

Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶32

Shubham

Jitendra Kumar Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

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

Mohd. Jafar Vs Intjamiya Committee, Jama Masjid, Sakti

Ramnarayan Vs Rikhiram and Ors.

Purshottam Lal Vs Sevakram

Salik Ram Vs Shashi @ Harsha Dewangan

Smt. Mahabati and Ors. Vs Heeralal Sinha and Ors.

Nisha Sen Vs Dr. Jitendra Tiwari