Writ petition challenging an eviction notice issued by the Naib-Tehsildar without a hearing and before the expiry of the statutory appeal period under the CG Land Revenue Code, 1959.
The impugned eviction notice shall not be given effect for a period of 60 days from 16.02.2024. The petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal.
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
WPC No. 1341 of 2024
Maniram Sahu S/o Shri Anand Ram Sahu Aged About 59 Years R/o Village- Hirri, Post Office- Devgaon, Police Station And Tahsil-Masturi, Civil And Revenue Dist.- Bilaspur, C.G. ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Civil And Revenue Dist.- Raipur, C.G.
2. The Collector Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue Dist.- Bilaspur, C.G.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Masturi, Civil And Revenue Dist.- Bilaspur, C.G.
4. The Tahsildar/ Nayab Tahsildar Masturi, Civil And Revenue Dist.- Bilaspur, C.G.
5. The Sarpanch Village Panchayat-Hirri, Police Station And Tahsil-Masturi, Civil And Revenue Dist.- Bilaspur, C.G. ---- Respondents
(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, P.L. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board
06.03.2024
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-
“ 10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record from the respondent authorities.
10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/ set-aside the order dated 16/02/2024 (Annexure-P/1) issued from the office of respondent no. 4. Tehsildar/ Nayab Tehsildar, Masturi, Civil & Revenue District-Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby petitioner has directed to remove his encroachment from the part of govt. land bearing Khasara No. 57/1 measuring area 18.203 hectare, which is situated at Village Panchayat-Hirri, District-Bilaspur(C.G.).
10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly pleased to direct the Respondent authorities may be given proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner prior to dispossing from the land bearing Khasara No. 57/1, which is situated at Village-Hirri, Tahsil-Masturi, District-Bilaspur (C. G.).
10.4 Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon’ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favor of the petitioner.
2
2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner is the possession holder of government land bearing survey No. 57.1, ad-measuring 18.203 hectares situated at Village Hirri, P. S. & Teh.-Masturi, Dist.-Bilaspur. On the said land, the ancestors of the petitioner built up a house as well as a courtyard and used to reside there. 3-4 years ago, the petitioner reconstructed the house. When the petitioner started constructing a boundary wall around his house, Panchayat bearers of that village objected to it stating that a Fair Price Shop/P. D. S. Godown is supposed to be built on the said land. Thereafter, the Naib-Tehsildar, Masturi on 16.02.2024 issued an eviction notice to the petitioner along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an order was passed by the Naib-Tehsildar, Masturi i.e. respondent No. 4 on 16.02.2024 and without affording any opportunity to prefer an appeal against the order impugned, the eviction notice has been issued. He would also submit that the period of limitation to prefer an appeal against the order of Naib-Tehsildar before the SDO (R) is 60 days according to provisions of Section 44 of the CG. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code, 1959’) but prior to the expiry of said period, the eviction notice has been issued. He would pray that the eviction notice may be quashed and the petitioner may be granted a suitable opportunity to prefer an appeal before the appropriate authority.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. Mr. Ruparel would submit that an appropriate order has been passed by the Naib-Tehsildar while exercising the power conferred under Section 248 of the Code, 1959 which does not warrant any interference. He would further submit that the petitioner has encroached on the land belonging to the State government bearing survey No. 57/1 ad-measuring 18.203 hectares, therefore, the authority has rightly issued the eviction notice. He would also submit that the petitioner
3
has an alternative remedy to prefer an appeal against the order dated 16.02.2024 before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Masturi, Dist.-Bilaspur according to provisions of Section 44 of the Code, 1959, therefore this petition in its present form is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard.
6. From a perusal of the documents annexed to this petition, it is quite vivid that the petitioner has constructed a house and is residing there along with his family. The Naib-Tehsildar i.e. respondent No. 4 on 16.02.2024 issued an eviction notice without giving any hearing to the petitioner.
7. Section 44 of the Code, 1959 deals with appeal and appellate authorities and
the same is reproduced herein below for reference:-
44. Appeal and appellate authorities.-- (1) Save where it has been otherwise provided, an appeal shall fie from every original order under this Code or the rules made thereunder-
(a) if such order is passed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to the Sub-Divisional Officer, whether or not the officer passing the order is invested with the powers of the Collector-to the Sub Divisional Officer;
(b) if such order is passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, whether or not invested with the powers of the Collector-to the Collector;
(c) if such order is passed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to the Settlement Officer to the Settlement Officer;
(d) if such order is passed by any Revenue Officer in respect of whom a direction has been issued under sub-section (3) of Section 12 or sub-section (2) of Section 21-to such Revenue Officer as the State Government may direct;
(e) if such order is passed by a Collector whether exercising the powers of Collector or Settlement Officer, during the currency of the term of settlement-to the Commissioner;
(f) if such order is passed by a Settlement Officer, whether exercising the powers of Settlement Officer or the powers of a Collector in connection with any settlement operation unless otherwise expressly provided to the Settlement Commissioner;
(g) if such order is passed by the Commissioner or the Settlement Commissioner-to the Board.
[(2) Save as otherwise provided a second appeal shall lie against every order passed in first appeal under this Code or the rules made thereunder-
(i) by the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Collector to the Commissioner; (ii by the Settlement Officer to the Settlement Commissioner; (iii) by the Commissioner to the Board-
4
(a) if the original order has in the first appeal been varied or reversed otherwise than in a matter of cost; or (b) on any of the following grounds and no other, namely:-
(ii) that the order has failed to determine some material issue of law or usage having force of law; or (iii) that there has been a substantial error or defect in the procedure as prescribed by this Code, which may have produced error or defect in the decision of the case upon merits.
(3) An order passed in review varying or reversing any order shall be appealable in like manner as the original order.
8. According to provisions of Section 44 of the Code, 1959 any order passed by Naib-Tehsildar/Tehsildar is appealable before SDO and the period of limitation is 60 days to prefer an appeal. In the present case, the order was passed by the Naib-Tehsildar on 1 6.02.2024 and the legal right of the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order impugned has been violated. The authority ought to have waited till the expiry of the limitation period i.e. 60 days before issuing the eviction notice whereas respondent No. 4 issued the eviction notice on the same date. The authority has shown too much haste in issuing the impugned notice for the reasons best known to him.
9. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the present petition is allowed . The impugned eviction notice shall not be given effect for a period of 60 days from 16.02.2024. At the same time, the petitioner would be at liberty to prefer an appeal against the order dated 16.02.2024 according to provisions of Section 44 of the Code, 1959.
10. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the present petition is disposed of.
Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge
Ajinkya
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the issuance of an eviction notice by the Naib-Tehsildar prior to the expiry of the 60-day limitation period for appealing was legally sustainable?
Whether the petitioner was accorded a hearing before the eviction notice was issued?
Whether the petition seeking stay of the eviction notice in light of the violation of the limitation period for appeal is maintainable?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Maniram Sahu S/o Shri Anand Ram Sahu
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue
The Collector Bilaspur
The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Masturi
The Tahsildar/ Nayab Tahsildar Masturi
The Sarpanch Village Panchayat-Hirri
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
