Ram Gulal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3776 of 2019

¶4

Ram Gulal Sahu S/o Late Keju Ram Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Hardi, Tahsil And District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2. Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Department, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.

¶9

3. Collector, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.

¶10

4. Sub Divisional Officer Revenue, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.

¶11

5. Tahsildar Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.

¶12

6. Dhal Singh Sahu Son Of Moti Ram Sahu, R/o Village Hardi, Tahsil And District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.

¶13

	----Respondents
For Petitioner	: Shri Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate.
For Respondents/State For Respondent No.6	: Shri Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. : Shri Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶15

06.03.2024

¶16

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the forest rights lease was granted in favour of the petitioner on 28.04.2017 pertaining to survey No. 161 admeasuring 0.44 hectares situated at Village Hardi, District Gariyaband. A complaint was made by respondent No.6 namely, Dhal Singh before the Tehsildar to the effect that he is in possession of some part of survey No.161. An enquiry was conducted and it was found that respondent No. 6 is in possession of 0.21

¶17

2

¶18

hectares of the aforesaid land. On the complaint of respondent No.6, the Sub-Divisional Officer referred the matter to the Collector with the recommendation to cancel the lease granted in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure-P/1.

¶19

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the aforesaid lease was granted in favour of the petitioner after due satisfaction and conducting a due enquiry on 28.04.2017. He would further submit that respondent No.6 never remained in possession of survey No.161. He would further argue that a false complaint was made by respondent No.6 before the Tehsildar and at present, respondent No.6 is interfering in the peaceful possession. He would also submit that no enquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer and on the basis of a false report; the matter has been referred to the Collector. He would pray to quash the order dated 22.01.2018 passed by the SubDivisional Officer.

¶20

1. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is appealable before the Collector. He would further submit that there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.6 with regard to the possession of the property. It is also argued that over some part of survey No.161, respondent No.6 is in possession and this fact is evident from the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector on 17.10.2017 and thus, the petition is not maintainable.

¶21

1. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for respondent No.6 would submit that respondent No.6 is in possession of 0.21 hectares of survey No.161. He would further submit that respondent No.6 has been cultivating the said area for a long and when a lease was granted in favour of the petitioner, he immediately made a complaint to the Tehsildar. He would also submit that the Sub-Divisional Officer

¶22

3

¶23

after due inquiry referred the matter to the Collector to take appropriate decision.

¶24

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record.

¶25

Taking into consideration the fact that the forest rights lease was granted in favour of the petitioner on 28.04.2017 and thereafter, a complaint was made by respondent No. 6 before the Revenue Authority; an enquiry was conducted and it was found that respondent No.6 is in possession of 0.21 hectares of the land whereas, the lease has been granted in favour of the petitioner; the lease of the petitioner is still in existence and the same has not been cancelled by the authority, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the interference by respondent No.6 is illegal, however, the Sub-Divisional Officer referred the matter to the Collector with the recommendation to cancel the lease granted in favour of the petitioner looking to the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.6, therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned Collector to decide the matter referred by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 22.01.2018 expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months after affording the due opportunity of hearing to the interested parties.

¶26

1. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of .

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶29

Nimmi

Ram Gulal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Gulal Sahu 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Satish Katiyara Vs the Collector

Durgesh Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Dhruv Vs Abhishek Kumar Soni

Smt. Raimuni @ Smt. Raimuni Lakda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Riyaz Chisty Vs Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh