Writ petition challenging State Government’s order rejecting representation to reinstate lease; dismissed as no illegality found.
Writ petition dismissed; impugned order of State Government upheld
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (227) No. 789 of 2015
Versus
| ----Respondents | ||
|---|---|---|
| For Petitioner | : | Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Tirkey, Advocate |
| For Respondents No. 1 & 3 | : | Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Govt. Advocate |
| For Respondent No 2 | : | Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate |
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board
03.03.2023
2
the petitioner is not a tenant of respondent No.2. In Civil Appeal No. 22A/2004, judgment and decree of the trial Court has been affirmed vide judgment dated 08.04.2005. A complaint was made by respondent No.2 before the Collector making allegation that the petitioner was his tenant and concealing the fact of tenancy, he applied for grant of lease in his favour, whereas, the land was already recorded in the name of respondent No.2 in revenue records and the property tax is still being paid by him. An inquiry was conducted by the Collector and order was passed on 04.04.2005, whereby the lease granted to the petitioner, dated 09.07.1984, has been cancelled.
3
appearing for the State/respondents No.1 & 3, would support the order passed by the State Government.
10.From record, it appears that earlier a suit was filed by respondent No.2, Khemji and Umashankar Dringel against the petitioner for eviction and arrears of rent which was dismissed. The judgment passed by the learned trial Court was affirmed by the lower Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 22A/2004. Thereafter, a complaint was made by respondent No.2 before the Collector making allegation that the House No. 3/225 & 3/226 is his ancestral property which was recorded in the name of her grandmother who died on 01.06.1964 and a part of the house was rented to the present petitioner, but concealing the tenancy, the petitioner moved an application for grant of lease, under the scheme of Madhya Pradesh Nagriya Kshetra Ke Bhumihin Vyakti (Pattadhriti Adhikaro Ka Pradan Kiya Jana) Adhiniyam 1984. Consequently, lease deed of Survey No. 158/1, plot No. 88 admeasuring area 23.92 sq.ft., was given to the respondent No. 2. An inquiry was conducted by the Nazul Officer where it was found that the petitioner
4
has alienated the property without obtaining permission from the prescribed authority in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 (3) of the Act of 1984, and his lease deed is liable to the cancelled and same was cancelled, with direction to remove the petitioner from the possession. It is also held by the State Government that the petitioner was residing in house of the grandmother of respondent No.2, but concealing this fact that he applied for lease and later he violated the terms and conditions of the lease, the detailed inquiry was conducted by the revenue authority and thus, the State Government affirmed the order passed by the Collector dated 01.09.2014.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge
vatti
Chhotelal S/o Ramnath
State of Chhattisgarh
Poonamchand S/o Khemji
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
