Dismissed¶47

Yudhishthir Prasad Patel (Died) Through Legal Heirs- (1) Gopi Lal Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Oct 2024WPC/1394/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition; Article 226 Constitution of India; disputed questions of fact; alternative remedy; civil jurisdictional Court; sale consideration; Rs. 30,77,500/-; Collector Raigarh enquiry report dated 28.05.2010 (Annexure P-2); cancellation of sale deed; rehabilitation policy; employment to sons and son-in-law; mining operation land; Jindal Steel and Power Sponge Ltd.; Section 47-A (4) Indian Stamps Act; order dated 06.06.2012 (Annexure P/12); WPC No. 6649/2011; Raigarh; Chhattisgarh; NAFR; neutral citation 2024:CGHC:40396.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioners to approach the authority concerned for redressal of their grievances in light of the enquiry report (Annexure P/2) dated 28.05.2010; no order as to costs. ¶47

Yudhishthir Prasad Patel (Died) Through Legal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the petitioners to approach the authority concerned for redressal of their grievances in light of the enquiry report (Annexure P/2) dated 28.05.2010; no order as to costs.

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction to respondent No. 2 to pay the difference of the sale consideration amount of Rs. 30,77,500/- as held in the enquiry report dated 28-05-2010. +2 more

¶28

Court's answer

The original petitioner/legal heirs are required to approach the competent civil jurisdictional Court for relief in respect of payment of the difference of amount of Rs. 30,77,500/-.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The reliefs other than employment relate to pure disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; the petition as framed and filed is not maintainable.

¶46

Key takeaways

Three sons and one son-in-law of the original petitioner have been given employment in the company of respondent No. 2 under the rehabilitation policy of the State, and this is not disputed; the employment-related relief stands satisfied.ratio¶45
No objections were raised by the original petitioner or his sons to the sale deeds they executed; they accepted the transactions and obtained services in the company of respondent No. 2.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (C) No. 1394 of 2012, decided on 14/10/2024 by Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. (High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur) - dismissed. The original petitioner sold his land at Village Tapranga, Patwari Halka No. 40, Gharghoda (District Raigarh) to respondent No. 2 (Jindal Steel and Power) for mining operations; sale deeds were executed between 1999-2002 and the transactions ran from 17.08.1998 to 01.06.2009 without contemporaneous objection. An enquiry by the Collector, Raigarh culminated in an enquiry report dated 28.05.2010 (Annexure P-2) recording complaints of meager consideration and recommending a suit/appeal for cancellation of the sale deed or adequate consideration, besides criminal action. The writ petition sought (i) Rs. 30,77,500/- as difference of sale consideration per that enquiry report, (ii) compliance with the State rehabilitation policy, and (iii) permanent employment for the petitioner's sons. Held: three sons and one son-in-law had already been given employment in respondent No. 2's company under the rehabilitation policy, a fact not disputed; the remaining reliefs involved pure disputed questions of fact triable by the competent civil jurisdictional Court and could not be adjudicated in a petition under Article 226, rendering the petition not maintainable (the State also pointed to the remedy under Section 47-A (4) of the Indian Stamps Act against the order dated 06.06.2012, Annexure P/12). Petition dismissed with liberty to approach the authority concerned in light of Annexure P/2; no order as to costs.

¶1

1 / 5

¶2

Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT Date: 2024.10.15 16:50:57 +0530

¶3

2024:CGHC:40396

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 1394 of 2012

¶7

Yudhishthir Prasad Patel S/o Ujjawal Singh Patel (Since dead), Through Legal Heirs-

¶8

Gopi Lal Patel S/o Late Yudhishthir Prasad Patel Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Taparanga, Post Dhourabhatha, Via Tamnar, District-Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Ramakant Patel S/o Late Yudhishthir Prasad Patel, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Taparanga, Post Dhourabhatha, Via Tamnar, District-Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Kaushal Kumar Patel, S/o Late Yudhishthir Prasad Patel, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Taparanga, Post Dhourabhatha, Via Tamnar, District-Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Petitioners

¶12

versus

¶13

State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

General Manager Jindal Steel And Power, Sponge Ltd. Patrapali, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

Deputy Geneal Manger Jindal Steel And Power, Sponge Ltd. Patrapali, Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶16

Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶17

Sub Divisional Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶18

2 / 5

¶19

Registrar, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶20

L.S. Kindo S/o not known to the petitioner, aged About 50 Years Registrar, Raigarh, District-Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶21

D.K. Bhargava, Deputy General Manager, Jindal Steel Power Limited, Raigarh, District-Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

For Petitioners :	Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate.
For Respondent-State :	Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhaita, P.L.
For Respondent Nos. :	Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate.
2, 3 & 8

¶24

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶25

Order on Board

¶26

14/10/2024

¶27

The petition has been filed by the original petitioner Yudhishthir Prasad Patel who expired during the pendency of this case and the legal heirs were brought on record. The original petitioner filed this petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶28

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to pay the difference of the amount i.e. 30,77,500/- as held in enquiry report dated 28-05-2010.

¶29

10.2 That, the state as well as the private respondent to be directed to comply with the rehabilitation policy as the mining is going just beside the land of the petitioner and it is unsafe for human residence. The copy of rehabilitation policy is being filed as Annexure P-13 .

¶30

10.3 That, the respondent No.2 be directed to provide permanent employment to sons of the petitioner as per letter and sprite of rehabilitation policy as well as agreement between the petitioner and private respondent.

¶31

10.4 That the Hon'ble Court be further pleased to grant such other relief(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and fair play”.

¶32

The grievance of the petitioner is that his land was needed regarding mining operation by the respondent No. 2 as such the

¶33

3 / 5

¶34

respondent No. 2 has purchased his land situated at VillageTapranga, Patwari Halka No. 40, Gharghoda and accordingly sale deed was executed between them, however, the petitioner has not been given adequate sale consideration and taking advantage of his illiteracy sale deed was got executed for a meager amount and hence they are required to be given adequate sale consideration by respondent No. 2. The concerned Collector, Raigarh has conducted an enquiry report dated 28.05.2010 (Annexure P-2) and has passed an enquiry report. According to which complaints were made against the respondent No. 2 regarding payment of meager amount. Hence, the Collector find it appropriate to direct District Registrar to file appropriate suit/appeal before competent jurisdictional Court for cancellation of sale deed or for grant of adequate consideration amount. The Collector has also advised for initiation of criminal action against the authorities of respondent No. 2.

¶35

On the other hand, the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 8 have raised an objection that the relief claimed by the petitioner in respect of grant of employment has already been granted to the sons of the petitioner and so far as relief 10.1 regarding direction to pay the difference of the amount i.e. 30,77,500/- is concerned, the same can only be adjudicated before the competent Civil Jurisdictional Court and not by this Court in a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has submitted that the original petitioner has executed sale deed between the year 1999-2002 and has not made any objection at that point of time.

¶36

The respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 8 have complied the rehabilitation policy of the State, three sons of the petitioner and one son-in-law were given appropriate employment and they are working in the company of respondent No. 2, as such the petition as framed and filed by the petitioner is not maintainable.

¶37

Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the matter in dispute relates to petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 8

¶38

4 / 5

¶39

who have entered into transaction and it was alleged that lesser amount of consideration was paid for which remedy lies before appropriate Civil Jurisdictional Court. So far as challenge of order dated 06.06.2012 (Annexure P/12) is concerned. The original petitioner is having remedy under Section 47-A (4) of the Indian Stamps Act, the petitioners are having efficacious alternative remedy which they have not availed the instant petition is not maintainable.

¶40

Countering the written filed by the petitioners as well as arguments advance by the respondents as well as submissions made by the petitioner.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since the matter relates to taking land of the petitioners for mining operation by respondent No. 2 and that too under rehabilitation policy of the State as such the petitioner has rightly approached before this Court and in light of enquiry report dated 28.05.2010 (Annexure P/2) the petitioner is required to be given additional amount as well as the benefits of rehabilitation policy of the State. However, the petitioner has admitted this fact that under rehabilitation policy of the State three sons and one son-in-law of the petitioner were given employment by respondent No. 2.

¶42

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the documents annexed with the petition as well as pleadings of the petitioners as well as respondents.

¶43

That from the perusal of the petition as well as the documents annexed with the petition, it is apparent that the original petitioner sold his land to respondent No. 2 for starting mining operation. He has also entered into an agreement by which under rehabilitation policy of the State, employment was required to be given to the legal heirs of the original petitioner. Various sale deeds were executed by the original petitioner as well as his sons which is visible by the documents (Annexure R/4) filed by respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 8. The transaction started from 17.08.1998 and the

¶44

5 / 5

¶45

last transaction was of 01.06.2009. No objections were raised by the original petitioner or his sons who have executed sale deed but in fact they have accepted the same and have got services in the company of respondent No. 2, however, subsequently he has filed a writ petition before this Court bearing WPC No. 6649/2011 with a prayer to decide his representation and vide order dated 01.02.2012, this Court has passed order directing the respondents to decide his representation within a period of four weeks. In the meanwhile an enquiry report dated 28.05.2010 was passed by the Collector upon complaint made by the original petitioner as such the petitioner has filed this petition seeking aforesaid reliefs. It is not disputed that the three sons and one son-in-law of the original petitioner has been given employment in the company of respondent No. 2 under the rehabilitation policy of the State.

¶46

Now, so far as other reliefs are concerned since the matter relates to pure disputed questions of fact and further the matter seems to be adjudicated by the competent Civil Jurisdictional Court. In my considered opinion the original petitioner/ legal heirs of the original petitioner are required to approach competent civil jurisdictional Court for getting relief in respect of payment of difference of amount i.e. Rs. 30,77,500/-. Since these disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India as such in my opinion the petition as framed and filed before this Court is not maintainable.

¶47

Accordingly, this petition fails and it is hereby dismissed, however, the petitioners are granted liberty to approach the authority concerned for redressal of their grievances in light of (Annexure P/2) dated 28.05.2010.

¶48

No order as to cost(s).

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶51

Raghu Jat

Yudhishthir Prasad Patel (Died) Through Legal Heirs- (1) Gopi Lal Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yudhishthir Prasad Patel (Died) Through Legal Heirs- (1) Gopi Lal Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Church of Christ Mission in India Vs C.G. Information Commission

Church of Christ Mission in India, Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Nirmal Chand Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Krishna Devi Agrawal and Ors. Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.

Govind Jha Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Govind Jha Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.