Rajkumar Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:12291-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WA No. 175 of 2025

¶6

1 - Rajkumar Kaushik S/o Late Shri Jwala Prasad Kaushik Aged About 59 Years R/o Village- Mohtara, Tehsil- Bilha, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Currently Residing At Sumiran Vihar Quarter No. 11, Uslapur, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management, Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Collector, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - Sub Divisional Officer, Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

5 - Tehsildar, Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Appellant : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G.

¶16

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶17

Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board

¶18

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶19

2

¶20

12. 03.2025

¶21

1. Heard on I.A. No. 01 which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. On due consideration, the I.A. No. 01 is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶22

2. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant against the order dated 06.12.2024, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in the WPC No. 6000/2024 (Rajkumar Kaushik Vs. State of C.G. & Ors.) with the following reliefs:-

¶23

“3.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly set-aside/quash the order Dated 06.12.2024 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in WPC No. 6000/2024 (Rajkumar Kaushik V State of Chhattisgarh and Others)

¶24

3.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to decide the application filed before SDO, Bilha on 11.11.2024 registered on 27.11.2024 with registration no. 202411070100019 under section 145 of CrPC/Section 164 Bhartiya Nyay Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Annexure P/7) within a specified timeline.

¶25

3.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondent Collector, Bilaspur (Annexure P/6) to decide the representation of the appellant in manner objective manner by taking appropriate steps to protect the interest and livelihood of appellant within a specified timeline.

¶26

3.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other order or orders, writ or writs, direction or directions as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in favor of the appellant, in the interest of justice.”

¶27

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a resident and farmer of Bilha, Dist- Bilaspur and appellant’s father namely Late Shri Jwala Prasad Kaushik, owned ancestral land measuring 14.68 acres in Bilha, which was divided among the heirs prior to his demise in year 2009. as per this division, the appellant was allocated 7 acres and his brother was allocated another 7 acres. The remaining land was distributed among the step brothers from the second marriage of Shri Jwala Prasad Kaushik, who accepts their share and

¶28

3

¶29

sold it thereafter. After demise of their father, the step brothers of the appellant alleged before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) Bilha in Criminal Case No. 05/2010-11 that the appellant was illegaly cultivating, 3.86 acre portion of land. Then the SDO issued an order allocating this 3.86 acre plot to the step brothers, reducing the appellant’s share from 14.68 acres to 10.82 acres. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by SDO, the appellant filed a Criminal Revision No. 93/2012 before the learned Session Court, Bilapur and the learned Sessions court passed his order on 17/12/2012 in favour of the appellant. Though the learned Session Court clearly passed its order but the step brother of the appellant failed to comply with the orders and continued to violate the appellant’s legal rights and therefore, the appellant made a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur on 15.12.2023. despite intimating the authorities, the authorities have not taken any step to redress the grievance of the appellant, the appellant has made representation before Tahsildar, Bilha on 30.10.2024. when the authorities was not decided the representation made by the appellant, the appellant filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court bearing WPS No. 6000/2024 which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant with the aforesaid reliefs.

¶30

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is having possession over the land, admeasuring 14.68 acres situated at Bilha, Tehsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.), which was partitioned earlier by his father between the appellant, his brother and his step brothers. Step brothers sold their share of property to the appellant. Thereafter, appellant started cultivation upon the disputed land, but step brothers of appellant forcefully harvested the crop, which was cultivated by him. He further submits that such type of dispute arose earlier, in which, Criminal Case No.5/2010-11 was registered and vide Annexure-P/1 dated 16.01.2012 order was passed in favour of the appellant, despite that, his step brothers are interfering in the

¶31

4

¶32

possession of the appellant, hence this appeal should be allowed and the impugned order dated 06.12.2024 may be set aside.

¶33

5. Per Contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would submit that petitioner has not filed any revenue document to show his title/right over the disputed land and even khasra number, etc. has not been mentioned in writ petition. He further submits that it seems that there is inter se dispute between petitioner and his step brothers, therefore, this petition is not maintainable.

¶34

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 06.12.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No. 6000/2024 as well as the documents annexed with the case.

¶35

7. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the documents on record, the learned Single Judge has observed that:-

¶36

“5. Having considered the facts narrated by the petitioner and further considering the fact that petitioner has neither mentioned khasra number of disputed land, nor any revenue documents has been filed to demonstrate his title/right over it, further, it seems that there is dispute in respect of the title over the disputed land between petitioner and his step brothers, as such, proper recourse is to file civil suit to get decided the title dispute between them. But petitioner, instead of filing civil suit, has directly approached to this Court, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Since dispute between petitioner and his step brothers seems to be a civil dispute, which can be decided by Civil Court, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this petition.”

¶37

8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court.

¶38

5

¶39

9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is

¶40

hereby dismissed. No cost (S)

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶43

Sd/-