Ram Lal Alias Gautariha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

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

¶10

2 - Chhattisgarh Board Of Revenue Bilaspur, Tahsil / Post - Bilaspur, P.S. - Civil Line, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶11

3 - Divisional Commissioner Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

4 - Additional Commissioner Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

5 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶14

6 - Tehsildar Masturi, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶15

7 - Naib Tehsildar Masturi, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶16

8 - Rohit Kumar S/o Late Patiram Aged About 28 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Malhar, Tehsil - Masturi, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶17

---- Respondents

¶18

2

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr. Lalit Bhushan Paswan, Advocate For State/respondents : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, PL

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

18/06/2025

¶23

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s) :

¶24

“10.1. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased

¶25

to call for the records from the Courts below.

¶26

10.2. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the orders dated 01.05.2023 (Tahsildar, Masturi), 18.05.2024 (Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur in Case No.319/A-70/202223), and 05.12.2024 (Chhattisgarh Revenue Board) concerning Khasra No.524/2, Village Malhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶27

10.3. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate order or direction restraining the respondents from taking any coercive steps or dispossessing the petitioner from the suit land, directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever.

¶28

3

¶29

10.4. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the warrant of eviction dated 06.03.2025 issued against the petitioner with respect to the said land.

¶30

10.5. Any other order/direction that this Hon’ble Court may deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶31

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Respondent No. 8

¶32

has no locus standi to invoke the provisions of Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, inasmuch as he was never in actual, physical, or lawful possession of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 524/2, situated in Village Malhar, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). The petitioner, on the other hand, has been in continuous, open, peaceful, and Uninterrupted possession of the said land for more than 40 years, having constructed a residential house and vard thereon and residing with his family to the knowledge of all concerned, including the revenue authorities. when petitioner's possession became adverse to the title of Respondent No. 8 and in accordance with the settled principle of law regarding adverse possession, the petitioner has acquired ownership rights over the suit land. Consequently, Respondent No. 8, having lost his ownership by operation of law, is not entitled to maintain an application under Section 250. He further contended

¶33

4

¶34

that adverse possession of over 40 years by the petitioner has matured into ownership rights under settled principles of law, and as such, the respondent no longer remains the owner of the suit land and is therefore barred from seeking remedy under Section 250, which is available only to rightful owners who have been dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law. The Respondent No. 8 has suppressed material facts in his application under Section 250 by not stating the specific period or manner in which he was allegedly dispossessed. Such vague and unsubstantiated claims violate the fundamental requirement of pleading dispossession under Section 250. The initiation of proceedings under Section 250 amounts to an abuse of process of law, as the matter of ownership is already sub judice before the competent Civil Court in Civil Suit (A) Case No. 37/2025, titled Ramlal alias Gautariha vs. Rohit Kumar and Another, where the petitioner has sought declaration of title by adverse possession. He further conended that the petitioner is protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, being in lawful possession of immovable property. No person can be deprived of property except by authority of law, and the summary dispossession order, in the absence of lawful ownership and actual possession by the respondent, violates the petitioner's constitutional rights. Issuance of a dispossession warrant dated 06.03.2025 without proper enquiry into the factual and legal possession of the

¶35

5

¶36

petitioner is arbitrary and perverse, and is liable to be set aside for being in violation of principles of natural justice and due process.

¶37

3. Learned counsel for the State-respondent opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶38

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶39

5. Taking into consideration the fact that the relief which has been sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction and the petitioner has no locus to quash and set aside the orders dated 01.05.2023 (Tahsildar, Masturi), 18.05.2024 (Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur in Case No.319/A-70/202223), and 05.12.2024 (Chhattisgarh Revenue Board) concerning Khasra No.524/2, Village Malhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.), in view of the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out for any interference.

¶40

6. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶41

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶42

Vasant

Ram Lal Alias Gautariha v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Lal Alias Gautariha v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nanji Bhai Chopada Vs the Additional Collector and Prescribed Officer

Smt. Jayaben Chopada Vs the Additional Collector and Prescribed Officer

Champaben Chopada Vs the Additional Collector and Prescribed Officer

Smt. Harbai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arun Pati Tripathi Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Abdul Sattar Vs Jarina Begam