Dismissed

Gauri Shankar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Oct 2023WPC/607/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges a Tahsildar order dismissing an application for land amendment in a Cooperative Society portal. The High Court set aside the dismissal, holding the order was not a speaking order as the Tahsildar failed to address whether the disputed property was part of earlier litigation. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision by the Tahsildar.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 25.11.2022 passed by Tahsildar set aside. Matter remanded to Tahsildar to decide application afresh by speaking order.

Gauri Shankar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Landlord and Tenant | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 607 of 2023

¶5

Gauri Shankar S/o Late Krishna Lal Patel Aged About 54 Years R/o Village - Bhedikona, Tehsil - Dabhra, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Secretary Department Of Food And Civil Supplies, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

The Collector Shakti, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Tahsildar Dabhra, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Mariyadit Bilaspur Through Chief Executive Officer, Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Mariyadit, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

Seva Sahakari Samiti Mariyadit Puttidih, Registration No.2866 Through Its Manager/paddy Procurement In-Charge, Seva Sahakari Samiti Mariyadit, Puttidih, Village- Puttidih, Tahsil - Dabhra, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶14

Nodal Officer Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Mariyadit, Bilaspur, Branch- Janjgir-Champa/ Sakti, District - Janjgir-Champa/ Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶15

Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Mariyadit Bilaspur, Branch- Dabhra Through Branch Manager, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶16

Gramin Krishi Vistar Adhikar Village Sakrali, Tahsil Dabhra, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶17

10.The Sub- Divisional Officer Dabhra, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶18

Harishankar Patel S/o Late Krishna Lal Patel Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Bhedikonda, Tahsil Dabhra, District Sakti (C.G.)

¶19

12.Smt. Padum Kuwar W/o Late Krishna Lal Patel Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Bhedikonda, Tahsil Dabhra, District Sakti (C.G.)

¶20

¶21

13.Sadanand Patel S/o Late Reshamlal Patel Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Bhedikonda, Tahsil Dabhra, District Sakti (C.G.)

¶22

14.Hiteshwar Patel S/o Late Reshamlal Patel Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bhedikonda, Tahsil Dabhra, District Sakti (C.G.)

¶23

15.Kumudani Patel W/o Late Resham Lal Patel Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Bhedikonda, Tahsil Dabhra, District Sakti (C.G.)

¶24

16.Suresh Kumar Patel S/o Late Shri Amrit Lal Patel Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Bhedikonda, Tahsil Dabhra, District Sakti (C.G.)

¶25

---- Respondents

¶26

_________________________ For Petitioner	_____________________________________ : Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate with Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate
For State/Res. No. 1 to 5 and 10	: Mr. Rahul Jha, Govt. Advocate
For Res. No.6, 8 and 9	: Mr. Jitendra Shrivatava, Advocate
For Respondent No.7	: Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay Advocate
For Res.No. 11 to 15	: Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, and Mr. Chetan Singh Chouhan, Advocates
For Intervenor	: Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate

¶27

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶28

Order On Board

¶29

07/10/2023

¶30

Challenge in this petition is to order dated 25.11.2022 passed by respondent No.5/ Tahsildar in Revenue Case No.33/B-121/202122 whereby the Tahsildar without going into merits of the proceedings have dismissed the case observing that no relief as prayed for by the petitioner/applicant therein can be granted as the petitioner has raised some objection before the Collector mentioning that in view of the pendency of Writ Petition (C)

¶31

¶32

No.2030 of 2021, no proceeding for registration of agricultural land before the Cooperative Society or its amendment can be ordered.

¶33

Mr. B.D.Guru, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that coowners and parties to the petition on account of the land recorded in their favour are in possession of the property. Earlier the land recorded in the name of petitioner was registered with the Society pursuant to which petitioner has also sold the paddy sown over the said portion of land as per entitlement fixed by the State Govt. Once registration of the land with the Cooperative Society in the name of land owner is already there, Cooperative Society should not again direct for re-registration of the land owned by the land owners, however, in the year 2022, petitioner was asked to get the land re-registered and considering the objection raised by the petitioner on the ground that interim order is passed by the High Court in WPC No.2030 of 2021, the land of the petitioner was not registered and he could not able to sell the paddy through Cooperative Society. However, the other co-sharer in whose name land were recorded, they were registered and they were permitted to sell the paddy through Cooperative Society. Petitioner submitted an application seeking a direction to the Cooperative Society for accepting the application for amendment in the description of the property recorded in the name of petitioner in the portal of the Society which came to be dismissed vide order dated 25.11.2022 only

¶34

¶35

on technical ground. He submits that the property sough to be added by way of amendment in the portal was not the subject matter of the dispute in the WPC No.2030 of 2021 or the subject matter of the proceeding before the Tahsildar which is under challenge in the aforementioned writ petition. Tahsildar ought to have verified the factual position and could have dispose of the proceeding by passing a speaking order which is lacking in this case and therefore the matter may be remitted back to Tahsildar with a direction to decide the application submitted by the petitioner by speaking order. It is also contended that last date of registration with Society for the purpose of selling paddy is 30^th October 2023 for this kharif season.

¶36

Mr. Sudeep Johri, learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor -Suresh Kumar Patel one of co-sharer of the ancestral property, do not dispute the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to nature of order passed by the Tahsildar without discussing the factual aspect. He also pointed out that the State Govt. has issued instructions with regard to registration of joint holding property for purpose of selling of paddy to the Cooperative Society and the Tahsildar may be directed to decide the application keeping in mind the instructions issued by the State Govt. in this regard on 28.09.2021. He also not disputed the submission of counsel for petitioner that the property subject matter of WPC No.2030 of 2021 is different to that of proceeding before Tahsildar in the

¶37

¶38

instant case.

¶39

Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 11 to 15 do not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶40

Mr. Rahul Jha, learned counsel for the State submits that Tahsildar in clear terms has observed in the order dated 25.11.2022 that it is the petitioner who raised objection before the Collector pointing out some order to have been passed in WPC No.2030 of 2021 and considering that objection, Tahsildar has rightly dismissed the application observing that till pendency of said writ petition no further order can be passed. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that last date of registration with the Society for the purpose of selling paddy of the land owned by the land owners residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Society is 30^th October 2023 is also not disputed by any of the parties.

¶41

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents annexed along with writ petition including the order passed by this Court in WPC No.2030 of 2021.

¶42

The Tahsildar has dismissed the application submitted by the petitioner with an observation that till pendency of writ petition bearing No. WPC No.2030 of 2021 no order for amending the portal can be passed and further the objection raised by the petitioner that in view of interim order passed by the High Court in WPC No.2030 of 2021, further proceeding for amending the

¶43

¶44

portal be restrained. Perusal of the order dated 03.05.2021 passed in WPC No.2030 of 2021 would show that in the said proceedings, order dated 01.04.2021 (Annexure P-23 therein) was stayed.

¶45

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the land which is sought to be amended in the portal is not the subject matter of dispute in the proceeding before the Tahsildar which was disposed of vide order dated 01.04.2021 and subject matter of challenge in WPC No.2030 of 2021 . Submission of learned counsel for the parties before this Court is that order of Tahsildar is not a speaking order discussing whether the property sought to be amended is part of earlier proceeding or not by mentioning details of the property.

¶46

In view of the submission of learned counsel for the parties, in particular submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the land which is sought to be amended in the portal, description of which is already available in Annexure P-3 is not subject matter of earlier proceedings before the Tahsildar and pending consideration in WPC No.2030 of 2021, in the opinion of this Court, Tahsildar has dismissed the application without dealing with the issue in appropriate manner. The Tahsildar ought to have recorded the fact with respect to description of the property involved in the proceeding pending before him and the part of property involved in earlier proceeding in Revenue Case No.140/B/121/2020-21.

¶47

¶48

10.In the aforementioned facts of the case where Tahsildar has not dealt with the issued on merits and have not discussed in detail whether the property which is subject matter before him was part of earlier proceedings, I am of the opinion that the order dated 25.11.2022 is not sustainable in law and the same is accordingly set aside.

¶49

The matter is remanded back to the Court of Tahsildar/respondent No.5 to decide the application submitted by the petitioner afresh after hearing all the parties and to decide the same by speaking order at the earliest looking to the last date of registration with the Society for the purpose of selling of paddy as submitted by learned counsel for the parties.

¶50

12.Accordingly writ petition stands disposed of.

¶51

Sd/----/-/-/-/--------/--/-

¶52

(Parth Prateem Sahu)

¶53

Judge

¶54

Praveen

Gauri Shankar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gauri Shankar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Kumar Sahu Vs Smt. Alarmelmangai D.

Kulwant Vs Smt. Ranu Sahu

Roshan Sahu Vs Alermelmangai D.

Mrudula Rishi Vs Shri Amitabh Jain, I.A.S.

Smt. Rameshwari Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Shukla Vs Kamalprit Singh