Ram Kumar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:52482

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

(Order reserved on 20/08/2025) (Order Delivered on 28/10/2025)

¶6

WPC No. 3096 of 2023

¶7

Ram Kumar Singh S/o Late Laxmi Narayan Singh Aged About 71 Years R/o H.No.305, Gayatri Mandir, Bhadrapara, Balco Nagar, Tahsil & District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue / Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya (New Secretariat), Mahanadi Dwar, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pin492001.

¶11

2 - Collector Korba Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh. Pin- 495677

¶12

3 - Additional Tahsildar Korba (Mr. Kerketta) Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh. Pin- 495677.

¶13

4 - Smt. Amarpati W/o Shri Inder Singh Aged About 56 Years R/o 206 Dablain, Dablain Kalan, District Jind, Haryana. Pin- 126116.

¶14

5 - Ashish Agrawal S/o Shri Rajkumar Agrawal Aged About 41 Years R/o Agrasen Marg, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh. Pin- 495677.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH ASHUTOSH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2025.10.28 17:43:35 +0530

¶17

For Petitioner :	Mr. Rajkamal Singh, Advocate through video conferencing assisted by Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocate
For State/Respondents No.1 to 3 :	Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG
For Respondents No.4 & 5 :	Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate

¶18

2

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶20

CAV Order

¶21

Heard.

¶22

By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 01/06/2023 passed by Respondent No.2 in Revenue Case No.202306050400027/B121/2022-23 whereby the application preferred by Respondent no.4 under Section 250 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 has been allowed. The petitioner further assails the earlier orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Korba, in Revenue Appeal Case No.163/B121/07-08 & in Revenue Case No.34/A-6/2007-08 passed under Section 248 & 250 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, respectively.

¶23

The petitioner by way of the instant petition has prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶24

10.1 This hon’ble Court may please be kind enough in calling the entire records of the Revenue Case No.202306050400027/B-121/2022-23 of the Court of the Collector, Korba and the Revenue Case No.202306052600008/A-70/2022-23 and Revenue Case No.202306052600009/A-70/2022-23 of the Court of Additional Tahsildar (Mr. Kerketta), Korba for perusal of the case.

¶25

10.2 This hon’ble court may please be kind enough in quashing & setting aside the impugned demarcation report dated 18.05.2023 and the orders dated 01.06.2016 passed by the Collector (Annex P-1) and also the proceedings Revenue Case No.202306050400027/B-121/2022-23 of the Court of the Collector, Korba and the Revenue Case No.202306052600008/A-70/2022-23 and Revenue Case No.202306052600009/A-70/2022-23 of the Court of Additional Tahsildar (Mr. Kerketta), Korba.

¶26

10.3 This honourable Court may please direct the respondent authority to correct the revenue records as

¶27

3

¶28

per the orders of the Sub Divisional Officer Revenue, Korba (Annexure P-5).

¶29

10.4 This hon’ble court may please also be kind enough in directing an enquiry by any independent investigating agency into the matter especially in relation to the connivance & conspiracy between the private respondents and the respondent No.2 & 3.

¶30

10.4a This honourable Court may please be kind enough in quashing and setting aside the order dated 06.07.203 passed by the respondent No.3 vide Annexure P-6 (internal page No.92 93).

¶31

10.4b This honourable Court may please be kind enough in directing the respondent No.1 to compensate the petitioner with adequate damages towards loss of property & harassment at the hands of respondent No.2 & 3 which works out to be a lump sum of Rs.50 Lakh as the loss to property amounts to Rs.39.19 Lakh, For Mental Agony & Harassment Rs. 10 Lakh and Rs. 1 Lakh towards legal expenses.

¶32

10.5 This hon’ble Court may please be kind enough in granting any other relief & the cost of the petition.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner and his sons are the bona fide purchasers and possessors of land situated at Village Nakathikhar, P.C. No.24, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, comprised in old Khasra Nos. 378, 379, 388/2, and 388/3, purchased from Smt. Bhagwati Bai by registered sale deeds executed in the year 2005. The earlier owner Smt. Bhagwati Bai was in possession since 1976. The petitioner has been in peaceful and continuous possession since the year 2000. He would next contend that the ownership and title of the petitioner and his sons have been duly affirmed by the judgments in Regular Civil Appeals Nos. 18, 19, and 20 of 2021, wherein the civil court decreed the title in their favour and granted perpetual injunction against the State of Chhattisgarh and private respondents from disturbing their possession. He would next contend that in spite of the

¶34

4

¶35

above civil decrees, Respondent No.3 Smt. Amarpati, who is a resident of Haryana, initiated revenue proceedings before the Collector, Korba, in Revenue Case No. 20230605040027/B-121/2022-23, on the basis of alleged sale and demarcation reports. He would next contend that the matter was later transmitted to the Additional Tahsildar, Korba, who, acting beyond his jurisdiction, proceeded to entertain and continue the matter under Revenue Case Nos. 202306052600008 and 202306052600009 (A-70/2022-23). He would next contend that the actions of Respondent No.2 (Additional Tahsildar, Korba) are patently without jurisdiction under Sections 248 and 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, since the petitioner has been in longstanding possession exceeding 20 years, and therefore, proceedings under Section 250 are inapplicable. He would next contend that despite several representations and requests for adjournment, the Additional Tahsildar refused to record petitioner’s evidence, denied opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses, and proceeded ex-parte under external pressure, which vitiates the entire proceedings. He would next contend that the impugned orders were passed with the clear objective of dispossessing the petitioner and settling the private respondent. The entire exercise of re-demarcation and hearing was done without notice, without jurisdiction, and in violation of due process of law. He would next contend that the petitioner has already filed the representations before the Collector, Korba seeking impartial demarcation and reexamination of the subject land, which have been ignored and also filed applications for providing certified copies of Revenue Cases No. 202306052600008 and 202306052600009 on 28.06.2023, but copies

¶36

5

¶37

were not supplied as the records were withheld. He would next contend that the the impugned orders suffer from lack of jurisdiction under Sections 248 & 250, C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959; violation of natural justice as the petitioner has been denied of hearing and opportunity to lead evidence; malafide exercise of power and abuse of authority for extraneous considerations, therefore, it is prayed that the impugned orders dated 01.06.2023 passed by the Collector, Korba, and 06.07.2023 passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Korba may kindly be quashed as the proceedings initiated under Section 250 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 are without jurisdiction and void.

¶38

Learned State counsel would contend that that the respondent Smt. Amarpati preferred an application before the Collector seeking demarcation of the disputed land and the Collector constituted a committee for the purposes of demarcation by the District Level Committee. Notice of demarcation was issued to all the concerned parties including the petitioner and the petitioner did not appear despite receiving the notice of demarcation and chose to abstain from demarcation proceedings vide Annexure R/2. He would next contend that the report pursuant to the demarcation reveals that the petitioner had not only encroached upon the private land belonging to the respondent Smt. Amarpati but had also encroached upon the government land bearing Khasra no. 178 to the extent of 0.500 hectare. He would next contend that on the basis of the said finding, the Collector, Korba, forwarded the case to the concerned Tehsildar for initiation of Revenue case U/s 248 and 250 of the CGLRC vide order dated 01/06/2023. He would next contend that in the proceeding under

¶39

6

¶40

Sections 248 and 250 of the CGLRC the petitioner has marked his presence which is evident from the order sheet vide Annexure R/4. He would next contend that the petitioner is seeking indulgence of this Court on the basis of misleading averments. He would next contend that the petitioner has alternate remedy against the findings of the Tehsildar and he can exercise the remedy available to under the CGLRC if so advised to him. He would next contend that way back on 02/05/2023 the petitioner was aware through the notice of demarcation of land that a demarcation of land has been contemplated, the petitioner had the opportunity to object and challenge the notice dated 02/05/2023 if the petitioner was aggrieved. He would next contend that thrice the petitioner had the opportunity to assail the acts firstly when the collector vide order dated 02/04/2023, directed the District Level Committee to conduct the demarcation; secondly when the notice dated 02/05/2023 was issued by the District Level committee and the petitioner had duly received the same and lastly when the demarcation was done and report of the same was submitted by the committee through the Superintendent, Land Record to the collector dated 18/05/2023. Even after, the petitioner had the opportunity to assail the order dated 01/06/2023 whereby the collector forwarded the case to the Tahsildar for instituting the revenue cases against the petitioner under Section 248 and 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. He would, therefore submit that since the petitioner did not assailed any of the actions and even participated in the proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar, the petitioner acquiesced the proceedings and the actions prior to institution of revenue proceeding by the Tahsildar, as such now

¶41

7

¶42

is legally estopped to challenge them for the first time in the instant petition, the institution of revenue proceedings is arising out of the previous sequence of events and the petitioner had actively participated without raising any objection which is manifest from the order sheets. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶43

Learned counsel for Respondents No.4 & 5 would contend that the demarcation conducted by the revenue authorities cannot be challenged in a proceeding under Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959. The order passed by the Tehsildar under Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code is well reasoned order and no ground has been made out to set-aside the order passed by the Tehsildar. The petitioner was afforded the reasonable opportunity of being heard and the Tehsildar on the basis of the statements recorded and on the basis of the demarcation report has passed the final order and there is no ambiguity in the said order. Even otherwise the order passed under Section 250 of Land Revenue Code, 1959 is appealable and instead of invoking the appellate jurisdiction the petition has been filed on incorrect facts. He would next contend that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of availability of the alternative remedy in the form of appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer. Without invoking the statutory appellate remedy, the petitioner has filed the instant petition and has suppressed the material fact that, remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner. He would next contend that the petitioner has filed the instant petition by suppressing certain material facts. He would next contend that the Respondent No.4 is the owner of the land bearing Khasra No.174/1ka, area 0.053 hectare;

¶44

8

¶45

Khasra No.174/1kha, area 0.081 hectare; Khasra No.174/1Ga, area 0.081 hectare; Khasra No.174/1Gha, area 0.113 hectare situated at Village Naktikhar, P.H. No.24, Korba, District Korba, C.G. He would next contend that the petitioner has not only encroached upon the land of the respondent No. 4 & 5, but has encroached upon the land of so many persons and is in the habit of creating disputes pertaining to immovable property. He would next contend that the petitioner has not filed any single document to show the ownership over the different parts of Khasra No. 174. The petitioner is owner of Khasra No. 186 & 187 which are not adjacent with the land of respondent No.5. He would next contend that Respondent No. 5 had purchased the property after paying the full amount of consideration and on the instance of erstwhile owner the order of eviction was passed. Though the respondent No. 5 is the registered owner and holding the registered sale deed, but is not able to get the possession of the property, due to the encroachment made by the petitioner. Therefore, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶46

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection.

¶47

Also perused the order dated 10/07/2023 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the relevant part of the order dated 10/07/2023 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶48

This writ petition is taken up for hearing on special mention being made by the learned counsel for petitioner in the morning immediately after starting of the courts hour. The prayer made by learned counsel for

¶49

9

¶50

petitioner at the time of mentioning was that the Tahsildar, Tahsil and district Korba without following due procedure of law, recording evidence of applicant, had passed an order for eviction of the petitioner from the property in dispute in a proceeding under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 on 07.07.2023. Petitioner could not obtain certified copy of the order passed by Tahsildar because the employees working in the office are on strike. Notice has also been issued by the Tahsildar on 08.07.2023 for eviction of petitioner and demolition of the superstructure standing over the disputed land immediately on the next day of passing of order which prima facie shows that the Tahsildar/ Naib Tahsildar are in nods with applicant and the private respondent.

¶51

Considering the nature of prayer made before this Court, direction was issued for listing of this case in the post lunch session and further direction was also issued to the State counsel present before this Court to immediately intimate the authorities that till the case is taken up for hearing no action for removing, eviction or demolition of any of the property of the

¶52

10

¶53

petitioner be taken by the State authorities.

¶54

When the case is taken up for hearing in the post-lunch session as the first case, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the observation made by this Court on the prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner for listing of this case and intimating the authorities not to take any action pursuant to the notice, the State counsel has also made attempt to call the concerned authorities but the Tahsildar who was present on spot purposefully did not take up the phone call. It is also the contention that counsel for petitioner had called his client and asked him to give the phone to Tahsildar present on spot, however, the Tahsildar refused to take the call from the petitioner’s phone also. The entire exercise of revenue authorities is malafide and only to provide undue advantage to private respondent and the Tahsildar acting in an arbitrary manner demolished the superstructure.

¶55

Learned State counsel submits that when he could not able to contact with the Tahsildar on mobile phone, he made call to the superior authorities ie., Revenue Divisional Commissioner and the Collector and it is thereafter the message was forwarded to

¶56

11

¶57

Tahsildar who immediately thereafter stopped the demolition process. It is also the contention of learned State counsel that by that time part of the superstructure has already been demolished.

¶58

At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that at the vacant land the private respondent has already started construction, as per his information.

¶59

Considering aforementioned facts of the case, submission of learned counsel for petitioner and the State counsel, the manner in which the Tahsildar has acted in issuing notice of eviction and removing encroachment immediately on the second day after passing of the order under Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code, let the Naib Tahsildar, Tahsildar and Additional Tahsildar of Tahsil and District Korba shall remain in attendance before this Court on 08.08.2023 along with the entire records of proceeding under Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code of subject matter and further the other documents showing that in how many proceedings such a prompt action has been taken by them. It is also directed that the status quo as it exists today with respect to subject land shall be maintained by the parties

¶60

12

¶61

till the next date of hearing.

¶62

From perusal of the above order and the entire documents it appears that the Tehsildar has proceeded in a very haste manner as the record shows that the Tehsildar passed the eviction order on 07/07/2023 and without waiting even for the expiry of the statutory period or providing any notice of execution, issued notice on 08/07/2023. It is pertinent to mention here that the demarcation conducted by the concerned revenue authority in absence of the petitioner and no notice has been served to the petitioner physically and only through the WhattsApp message the date of demarcation /notice was informed to the petitioner. Therefore, the conduct of the Tehsildar is not appropriate.

¶63

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, as also the order dated 10/07/2023 passed by this Court it is evident that the action of the revenue authorities, particularly the Tahsildar, Korba, was arbitrary and in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. This court, in its order dated 10/07/2023, had observed that the Tahsildar, Korba, passed an order under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 on 07/07/2023, and issued an eviction and demolition notice on the very next day, i.e. 08/07/2023, without following due procedure of law or affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court also noted the manner in which the demolition proceedings were carried out despite communication from the learned State counsel to maintain status quo, which prima facie demonstrated mala fides and undue haste. In view of the above factual and legal position, this Court finds that the order passed by the

¶64

13

¶65

Tahsildar under Sections 248 & 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code suffer from gross procedural irregularities and denial of fair opportunity to the petitioner. Accordingly, the order dated 06/07/2023 passed in Revenue Case No.202306052600008-A-70/Year 2022-23, Village Naktikhar, P.H. No.24 and order dated 06/07/2023 passed in Revenue Case No.202306052600009-A-68/Year 2022-23, Village Naktikhar, P.H. No.24 , are set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the competent authority for fresh demarcation of the disputed land in the presence of all the concerned parties, including the petitioner and the private respondents. The revenue authorities shall demarcate the government land Khasra No.178 as well as the land of the private respondent i.e. land bearing Khasra No.174/1ka, area 0.053 hectare; Khasra No.174/1kha, area 0.081 hectare; Khasra No.174/1Ga, area 0.081 hectare; Khasra No.174/1Gha, area 0.113 hectare (total area 0.328 hectare) situated at Village Naktikhar, P.H. No.24, Korba, District Korba, C.G. after constituting a team of competent revenue authorities within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter shall decide the matter under Sections 248 & 250 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 within a further period of four months after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties and the Petitioner & Respondent No.5 shall cooperate in the demarcation proceedings as well as in the proceedings under Section 248 & 250 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959. It is further directed that if, upon such fresh demarcation, it is found that the petitioner is not an encroacher, he shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for compensation for the loss or damage

¶66

14

¶67

caused to his property due to the earlier demolition action.

¶68