Gayalal Sharma (Dead) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:11107-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

Digitally signed by BABLU BABLU RAJENDRA RAJENDRA BHANARKAR BHANARKAR Date: 2025.03.07 11:14:41 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WA No. 159 of 2025

¶7

1 - Gayalal Sharma (Dead) Through Lrs., As Per Honble Court Order Dt. 21.09.2021

¶8

1. A Kanti Chandresh Sharma W/o Chandresh Sharma Aged About 40 Years (D/o Late Gaya Lal Sharma), R/o Near Sindhi Guru Sangat, 598, Ramnath Building, Sardar, Nagpur, Maharashtra, PIN-440001 1. B Gauri Shankar Sharma S/o Late Gaya Lal Sharma Aged About 37 Years R/o H.No. 319, Ward No.02, Vishwakarma Furniture, Power House Road, Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba, Chhattisgarh 1. C Uma Sharma D/o Late Gaya Lal Sharma Aged About 37 Years R/o H.No. 319, Ward No.02, Vishwakarma Furniture, Power House Road, - Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh 1. D Ravishankar Sharma S/o Late Gaya Lal Sharma Aged About 37 Years R/o H.No. 319, Ward No.02, Vishwakarma Furniture, Power House Road, Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Appellants

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya (New Secretariat), Mahanadi Dwar, Naya Raipur, Raipur, P.O. - Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Principal Secretary General Administration Department, State Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya (New Secretariat), Mahanadi Dwar, Naya Raipur, Raipur, P.O. And P.S. - Mana Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Principal Secretary Revenue Department, State Of Chhattisgarh,

¶14

2

¶15

Mantralaya (New Secretariat), Mahanadi Dwar, Naya Raipur, Raipur, P.O. And P.S. - Mana Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Principal Secretary Urban Administration And Development Department, State Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya (New Secretariat), Mahanadi Dwar, Naya Raipur, Raipur, P.O. - Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh,

¶16

5 - Collector Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba, Chhattisgarh, 6 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶17

7 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶18

8 - Tahsildar Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba, Chhattisgarh 9 - Station House In Charge Police Station - City Kotwali, Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶19

10 - (Died) Bajrang Lal Soni Through Lrs. As Per Honble Court Order Dt. 24.01.2024

¶20

10(a) Mamta Soni D/o Late Bajrang Lal Soni Aged About 29 Years R/o Makan No.-232, Mamta Jwellers, Gandhi Chowk, Korba Town, Chhattisgarh, Pin-495678

¶21

10(b). (B) Nikhil Soni S/o Late Bajrang Lal Soni Aged About 27 Years R/o Agroba Marg, Ward No.-11, Korba (Mcorp), Chhattisgarh, Pin495678

¶22

11 - Smt. Radha Soni W/o Bajrang Lal Soni Aged About 34 Years R/o Purani Basti, Korba, Tahsil - Korba, Civil And Revenue District - Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶23

12 - Jay Singh Agrawal S/o Rajkumar Agrawal Aged About 55 Years R/o Agrasen Chowk, Korba, Tahsil - Korba, Civil And Revenue District - Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶24

13 - Gopal Modi S/o Narayan Modi Aged About 52 Years R/o Seeta Mani Road, Korba, Tahsil - Korba, Civil And Revenue District - Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶25

14 - Vikas Agrawal S/o Rajbeer Agrawal Aged About 30 Years R/o R.B.

¶26

3

¶27

Traders, T.P. Nagar, Korba, Tahsil - Korba, Civil And Revenue District - Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶28

15 - Rahul Didwania Aged About 30 Years R/o Main Road, Korba, Tahsil - Korba, Civil And Revenue District - Korba, Chhattisgarh 16 - Rahul Modi Aged About 30 Years R/o Main Road, Korba, Tahsil - Korba, Civil And Revenue District - Korba, Chhattisgarh 17 - Anil Pahuja Aged About 50 Years R/o Main Road, Korba, Tahsil - Korba, Civil And Revenue District - Korba, Chhattisgarh 18 - G.K. Commercial Partner Rohit Agrawal S/o Jai Singh Agrawal R/o Shanti Niwas, Agrasen Road, Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶29

... Respondent(s)

¶30

For Appellants	: Mr.Rajkamal Singh, Advocate through Video Conferencing with Mr.Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocate
For Respondents	: Mr.Sanghrash Pandey, Government Advocate
No.1 to 5 & 7 to 9
For Respondent	: Mr. P.Acharya, Advocate
No.6
For Respondents	: Mr.Vikram Sharma, Advocate
No.10(a), 10(b) and 11

¶31

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶32

Judgment on Board

¶33

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶34

06.03.2025

¶35

Heard Mr.Rajkamal Singh, learned counsel through Video Conferencing with Mr.Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Sanghrash Pandey,

¶36

4

¶37

learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 5 and 7 to 9, Mr.P.Acharya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and Mr.Vikram Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.10(a), 10(b) and 11.

¶38

The appellants have filed this writ appeal against the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No.2025 of 2016 by which learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants herein / writ petitioners.

¶39

The facts of the case as projected before learned Single Judge are as under:-

¶40

A. The original petitioner, namely, Gayalal Sharma and his elder brother late Heeralal Sharma were tenants on the lands bearing Survey Nos. 635/5 and 449/3 admeasuring 48.5 decimals situated at village Korba, Tehsil and District Korba since the year 1969. The owner of the property was late Smt. Jainab Bi. The petitioners’ family was indulged in furniture manufacturing and running a licensed Saw Mill. It is further pleaded that the late Jainab Bi entered into an agreement to sell with the brother of the original petitioner Heeralal Sharma. The possession was handed over and the entire consideration was paid. In the year 1994, Heeralal shifted to his village on account of ill health and in the year 1997, he passed away. In November, 2001, late Jainab Bi offered the original petitioner Gayalal Sharma to sell a plot admeasuring 35 x 165 sq. ft. for consideration of Rs.5 lakhs and also made an offer

¶41

5

¶42

to sell the land admeasuring 15 x 165 sq. ft. for consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs. Pursuant to an oral agreement, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to Jainab Bi by the original petitioner on 24.11.2001. In the month of December 2001, Jainab Bi tried to sell the property to someone else. In the month of June, 2002, the petitioner approached the late Jainab Bi to make payment of the balance consideration amount. The petitioner was informed that Jainab Bi and her attorney have entered into a sale agreement with respondents No. 10 & 11 and immediately thereafter, the original petitioner raised an objection. Jainab Bi executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondents No.10 & 11 on 10.04.2002 but no action was taken by the revenue authorities.

¶43

B. The petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 3 of 2014 before the learned Second Additional District Judge, Korba for specific performance of contract and injunction on 05.03.2003. In the month of February – March, 2015, the petitioner got a document and came to know that the land in question was already sold to late Heeralal Sharma on 22.10.1993 and the entire consideration was paid. The original petitioner approached late Jainab Bi, who executed a receipt and promissory note. The civil suit filed by the original petitioner was dismissed on 31.3.2015 and against that judgment, First Appeal No. 110 of 2015 is pending consideration before the High Court.

¶44

C. Respondents No.10 & 11 moved an application under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 for eviction of

¶45

6

¶46

the original petitioner before the Tehsildar, Korba on 13.1.2015. The original petitioner filed a preliminary objection and took a plea that he had been in possession of the land for a long time. The subject land was diverted, therefore, the provisions of Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, Code 1959) would not apply. It was also stated that respondents No.10 & 11 have not pleaded the date of their dispossession and the application has not been moved within one year from the date of dispossession according to provisions of Section 250 of the Code, 1959. The Tehsildar vide order dated 25.5.2016 allowed the application and ordered the original petitioner to vacate the possession of the subject land within 7 days. The original petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba on 27.5.2016 along with the application for the grant of stay. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) summoned the records from the Court of Tehsildar and issued notices on 28.5.2016 and the matter was fixed for hearing on 1.6.2016. The petitioner subsequently filed Writ Petition (C) No. 1396 of 2016 challenging therein the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 25.5.2016 and that petition was withdrawn on 1.6.2016 with liberty to pursue the appeal along with the application for stay before the Appellate Authority. However, on 13.6.2016, the building/structure situated over the subject land was demolished by the Revenue Authorities and private respondents. The petitioner filed this petition on 29.7.2016 challenging therein the order passed by the

¶47

7

¶48

Tehsildar dated 25.5.2016 and subsequent action of demolition. This Court vide order dated 10.8.2016 granted liberty to the original petitioner to withdraw the appeal pending before the SubDivisional Officer, on the ground that a prima facie case of lack of jurisdiction with the Tehsildar is made out and therefore, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be entertained.

¶49

D. By way of writ petition being WPC No.2025 of 2016 the petitioners have sought relief to quash the orders dated 25.5.2016 and 27.5.2016 and also sought a direction to prosecute private respondents No. 6 to 9. Further, the petitioner has sought compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs for the demolition of the superstructure and damage caused to the property.

¶50

E. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein. Hence, this writ appeal.

¶51

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned orders of eviction & demolition passed & executed by the Tahsildar is bad in law being beyond the jurisdiction as the provisions of the Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959 do not authorize the Tahsildar to pass any order of eviction wherein possession is older than 2 years or where the subject land predominantly contains buildings & structures. He further submits that the judgements relied upon by learned Single bench of this

¶52

8

¶53

Court do not hold the field predominantly because the findings in the Judgment & Decree passed in Civil Suit No.03/2014 are already under challenge in First Appeal No.110/ 2015 before this Court, hence have not attained finality. The Judgment in Murlidhar and Ors. vs. Board of Revenue and Ors. MANU/MP/0306/2013 is related to the effect of a demarcation proceedings conducted under the provisions of Ssection 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1959 which had already attained finality in the said case, therefore has no relevance in the matter because in the present case the findings have not attained finality. He also submits that the First Appellate Court has the power to examine the question of law & fact both, therefore, the First Appellate Court is the final authority to decide the disputed questions of facts and the First Appeal is a True Extension of the original proceedings in a case. Hence a finding of fact sub-judice in First Appeal attains finality with the Judgment in the First Appeal. He contended that the passing remarks/ finding with regard to non-issues as has been made with regard to validity of possession by learned Additional District Judge, Korba in the aforesaid Civil Suit were not on any issue framed in the suit, hence, had no relevance at all & cannot affect the rights of the appellants as such discretionary powers are available only to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India or the Hon’ble High Courts but not to the Civil Courts. He contended that the eviction process under the provisions of Section 250 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959 can be carried out only in

¶54

9

¶55

accordance with the provisions of Sections 250 & 250A of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1939 (As applicable on the date of the order passed by Tahsildar) and by no other means. There is no provision in Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959 which permits eviction from buildings or demolition of buildings. He further contended that the petitioner's possession on the subject land which was predominantly a land consisting Shaw Mill & Furniture Workshop buildings could not have been affected vide a proceeding under the provisions of Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959 and the respondents No. 7, 8, 10 and 11 were fully aware of the fact that the First Appeal No.110 of 2015 is already pending before this Court still they have proceeded in the most illegal manner and harmed the petitioner. The present is clear case of connivance & conspiracy between the private respondents & the respondent no.7 & 8, just to evict the petitioner from the subject land by demolishing the petitioner's Shaw Mill & Furniture Workshop that was rightfully in the petitioner's possession since last many decades. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.

¶56

On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel appearing for private respondents oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submit that learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants herein, in

¶57

10

¶58

which no interference is called for.

¶59

We have learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.

¶60

From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge has observed that the Tehsildar passed the order under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 on 25.5.2016 and when the petitioner failed to handover possession of the land to respondents No.10 & 11, the action was taken in accordance with law and the possession was handed over to respondents No.10 & 11 and opined that the Tehsildar was competent to decide the application moved by respondents No.10 & 11 under Section 250 of the Code, 1959. Learned Single Judge further observed that with regard to the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no pleading either in the writ petition or in the reply to the application filed under Section 250 of the Code, 1959, even in the plaint filed before the Competent Civil Court with regard to the protection of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, such a plea is not available to the petitioners. Learned Single Judge also observed that admittedly, the civil suit filed by the petitioners for the specific performance of the contract has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Korba vide judgment and decree dated 31.3.2015 and opined that no case is made out for interference.

¶61

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the

¶62

11

¶63

parties, perusing the documents appended with writ petition as also with writ appeal, material available on record and the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

¶64

Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed . No cost(s).

¶65

Sd/- Sd/-

¶66

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶67

Bablu

Gayalal Sharma (Dead) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gayalal Sharma (Dead) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saiyad Ali Raza Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ludruram Nag Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Central Board of Trustees Employees Provident Fund Vs M/S Holy Cross Girls Higher Secondary School

Radheshyam Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mo. Meraj Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nagesh Chandra @ Narendra Mahaut Vs State of Chhattisgarh