Dismissed

Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal v. the Commissioner (R)

Chhattisgarh HC11 Dec 2023WA/512/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal challenging a decision to dismiss a petition regarding illegal revenue map alterations and disputed land boundaries, the High Court held that the lower judge committed no error warranting interference, finding the matter involved disputed facts unfit for writ jurisdiction.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal Vs the Commissioner (R) — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WA No. 512 of 2023

¶5

Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal S/o Late Radheshyam Jaiswal Aged About 68 Years R/o Village- Marwahi, P.S.- Marwahi Tah Marwahi Dist - Gaurela Pendra Marwahi (C.G.)

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Commissioner (R) Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶9

The Collector District Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.)

¶10

Sub Divisional Officer (R) Marwahi, Tah- Marwahi District GaurelaPendra- Marwahi (C.G.)

¶11

The Tahsildar Marwahi Tah- Marwahi District Gaurela- PendraMarwahi (C.G.)

¶12

Ashok Kumar S/o Mahavir Prasad Aged About 47 Years R/o Village- Marwahi, P.S.- Marwahi Tah Marwahi District GaurelaPendra- Marwahi (C.G.)

¶13

Lovekush S/o Mahavir Prasad Aged About 42 Years R/o VillageMarwahi, P.S.- Marwahi Tah Marwahi District Gaurela- PendraMarwahi (C.G.)

¶14

Sharda S/o Mahavir Prasad Aged About 34 Years R/o VillageMarwahi, P.S.- Marwahi Tah Marwahi District Gaurela- PendraMarwahi (C.G.)

¶15

Santosh S/o Mahavir Prasad Aged About 31 Years R/o VillageMarwahi, P.S.- Marwahi Tah Marwahi District Gaurela- PendraMarwahi (C.G.)

¶16

Raju S/o Durga Prasad Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Marwahi, P.S.- Marwahi Tah Marwahi District Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.)

¶17

Arun Prasad S/o Durga Prasad Aged About 30 Years R/o VillageMarwahi, P.S.- Marwahi Tah Marwahi District Gaurela- PendraMarwahi (C.G.)

¶18

Lalit Kumar S/o Hari Prasad Aged About 47 Years R/o VillageMarwahi, P.S.- Marwahi Tah Marwahi District Gaurela- PendraMarwahi (C.G.)

¶19

Anil Kumar S/o Durga Prasad Aged About 43 Years R/o VillageMarwahi, P.S.- Marwahi Tah Marwahi District Gaurela- PendraMarwahi (C.G.)

¶20

Sunil Gupta S/o Hari Prasad Aged About 41 Years R/o VillageMarwahi, P.S.- Marwahi Tah Marwahi District Gaurela- PendraMarwahi (C.G.)

¶21

¶22

Kamta Gupta S/o Ganesh Prasad Aged About 39 Years R/o VillageMarwahi, P.S.- Marwahi Tah Marwahi District Gaurela- PendraMarwahi (C.G.)

¶23

---- Respondents

¶24

Cause-title taken from Case Information System

¶25

For Appellant : Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Govt. Advocate

¶26

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶27

Judgment on Board

¶28

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶29

11.12.2023

¶30

Heard Mr. Badruddin Khan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 4.

¶31

The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition (C) No. 3524/2023 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, however, liberty was granted to file appropriate proceeding before appropriate authority to get the issue decided in accordance with law.

¶32

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is having agriculture land in village Kumhari Tahsil Marwahi that is registered as P.H.No 11, Khasra No. 140/1 area 0.94 acre in revenue record and the respondent no 5 to 14 got the revenue map of khasra No. 140/1 changed in collusion with the revenue officer and the khasra No.

¶33

140/2 marked in the map (Naksha) in front of khasra no 140/1by

¶34

¶35

illegal manner whereupon the appellant made complaint to the revenue authorities as well as filed R.T.I. application for knowing proceeding of Naksha Batankan and after looking to the RTI information(P/3) it is clear that no proceeding has been done by the revenue court for Naksha Batankan of khasra no 140/1 and 140/2.

¶36

The appellant also made complaint before the respondent No.1 regarding to the illegal Naksha Batankan whereupon the concerned authority sent letter to the appellant stating that the complain letter has been sent to the respondent No.2(Collector) for inquiry proceeding. The respondent No.4 Tahsildar sent letter dated 20/09/21 to the land Superintendent for providing information regarding illegal Naksha Batankan but no information has been given therefore it is clear that the no Naksha Batankan of khasra no 140/2 has been done in revenue map. Thereafter, the respondents No. 1 to 4 are not completing enquiry regarding Naksha Batankan of khasra No. 140/2 and as such they are getting benefit to the respondents No. 5 to 14 and other relative as well as the respondents No. 8,12,13,14 and other persons are trying to grab the appellant’s land khasra No. 140/1 on the basis of fake Naksha Batankan whereupon the appellant lodged the FIR. Further, The respondents No. 1 to 4 are not completing inquiry about fake Naksha Batankan of Khasra No. 140/2 due to which the respondent no 5 to 14 started trying to take possession forcefully.

¶37

The appellant filed petition WPC 2964/2022 having same grievance in which the Hon’ble Court passed the order that the respondent No. 2 to 4 shall ensure appropriate decision after due verification

¶38

¶39

and scrutiny as well as granted status quo. Thus, the respondents No.2 to 4 have not decided the representation then the appellant filed Contempt Case No. 221/23 before the this Court, then this Court passed the order directing to the appellant to file fresh proceeding.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Hon’ble Single Judge did not consider this fact that there is no any procedure for giving direction in pending enquiry to the revenue officer. He further submits that the Hon’ble Single Bench did not consider the fact that despite passing the status quo order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in WPC case 2964/2022, the respondents No.1 to 4 have made violation by giving possession to the respondents No. 5 to 14 stating that the implementation has been done as per the Hon’ble Court’s order.

¶41

He also submits that the Hon’ble Single Bench passed the order in WPC 3524/2023 directing to the appellant to submit the case in appropriate forum whereas there is no alternative remedy in the Revenue Court because we are seeking direction to decide pending enquiry regarding to Naksha Batankar and, therefore, the Hon’ble High Court has power to decide the matter. He therefore submits that looking to the Map of PWD and Revenue Map, it is clear that the tampering has been done in Computer online Naksha by illegal manner the appellant for the other ground would be pointed on the time of argument.

¶42

On the other hand, Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel for

¶43

¶44

respondents/State No. 1 to 4 opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, in which no interference is called for.

¶45

We have learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.

¶46

From perusal of the impugned order and materials available on record it transpires that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition observed that the appellant is owner of the land bearing khasra no. 140/1 which is by the side of the road. It was also the contention of learned counsel for appellant that in the map available in the department, there is mention of khasra No. 140/1 by the side of the road and there is no mention of other khasra No. ie., 140/2. Perusal of map placed on record at page no. 12 would show that in front of land owned by petitioner the land has been marked as khasra no. 140/2. When the petitioner is owner of the land bearing khasra no. 140/1 which shows that the original land bearing khasra no. 140 was divided further in sub-division and therefore the land which is recorded in the name of petitioner is mentioned as khasra no. 140/1, but in the map, there is no mention of other subdivision of the land ie., 140/2 or 140/3. It appears from the aforementioned facts of the case and grievance of petitioner that there are disputed facts of the case which cannot be decided in the writ petition and therefore, we do not find present to be a fit case to admit.

¶47

¶48

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

¶49

Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).

¶50

Sd/Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶51

Akhilesh/Chandra

Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal v. the Commissioner (R)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal v. the Commissioner (R)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Javaharlal Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Kumar Toppo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Preetak Kumar Bajpayee Vs Union Of India

Raju Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivsena Chhattisgarh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shailendra Kumar Thakur Vs Chief Executive Officer Earlier Known as Managing Director