Vijay Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - The Collector District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Tahsil - Abhanpur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

4 - The Tahsildar Tahsil - Gobra Nawapara, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

5 - The Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Sonisli Tahsil- Gobra Nawapara, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

6 - Rajkumar Sahu Tahsildar, Tahsil - Gobra Nawapara, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶15

--- Respondent(s)

¶16

WPC No. 4350 of 2025

¶17

1 - Vijay Yadav S/o Late Shri Narsingh Aged About 73 Years

¶18

2 - Dhalu Ram Sahu S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh Sahu Aged About 54 Years

¶19

3 - Nand Lal Tarak S/o Late Shri Budhiyar Tarak Aged About 52 Years

¶20

4 - Yash Kumar Yadav S/o Late Shri Aadiram Yadav Aged About 44 Years

¶21

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN

¶22

Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.12.12 10:49:58 +0530

¶23

5 - Ramswarup Sahu S/o Late Shri Sukhram Sahu Aged About 39 Years

¶24

6 - Heera Lal Sahu S/o Late Shri Makhan Sahu Aged About 58 Years

¶25

7 - Chhabilal Sahu S/o Shri Minlal Sahu Aged About 41 Years

¶26

2

¶27

8 - Beniram Sahu S/o Late Shri Anjanu Sahu Aged About 56 Years

¶28

9 - Mehattar Sahu S/o Late Shri Narayan Sahu Aged About 70 Years

¶29

10 - Hagru Ram Sahu S/o Late Shri Sokho Sahu Aged About 73 Years

¶30

11 - Malsay Sahu S/o Late Shri Chaitram Sahu Aged About 54 Years

¶31

12 - Jitendra Sahu S/o Shri Brijlal Sahu Aged About 37 Years

¶32

13 - Binda Yadav S/o Late Shri Bhondu Yadav Aged About 72 Years

¶33

14 - Manihar Sahu S/o Late Shri Kali Ram Sahu Aged About 62 Years

¶34

15 - Nand Kumar Tarak S/o Late Shri Budhiyar Tarak Aged About 54 Years

¶35

16 - Ganesh Yadav S/o Late Shri Rangi Yadav Aged About 70 Years

¶36

17 - Judawan Sahu S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh Sahu Aged About 45 Years

¶37

18 - Amrika Sahu W/o Late Shriram Sahu Aged About 55 Years

¶38

19 - Dinesh Kumar Rajak S/o Late Shri Bhuwan Lal Rajak Aged About 50 Years

¶39

20 - Heera Lal Sahu S/o Late Shri Kulu Ram Sahu Aged About 61 Years

¶40

21 - Shekhar Sahu S/o Minlal Sahu Aged About 44 Years

¶41

22 - Mehataru Sahu S/o Late Shri Narayan Sahu Aged About 57 Years

¶42

23 - Chhatrapal Sahu S/o Late Shri Sukhram Sahu Aged About 45 Years

¶43

24 - Ude Ram Sahu S/o Late Shri Makhan Sahu Aged About 56 Years

¶44

25 - Dilip Sahu S/o Shri Pardeshi Sahu Aged About 53 Years

¶45

26 - Ramswarup Sahu S/o Late Shri Kali Ram Sahu Aged About 55 Years

¶46

27 - Kusli Bai Sahu W/o Shri Ramkumar Sahu Aged About 59 Years

¶47

28 - Sirju Ram Sahu S/o Late Shri Anjan Ram Sahu Aged About 52 Years

¶48

29 - Dasri Vishwakarma W/o Late Shri Pathram Vishwakarma Aged About 65 Years

¶49

3

¶50

30 - Gukul Yadav S/o Shri Ganesh Yadav Aged About 42 Years

¶51

31 - Rewaram Tarak S/o Shri Prahlad Tarak Aged About 27 Years

¶52

32 - Jeevan Lal Yadav S/o Shri Vijay Yadav Aged About 49 Years

¶53

33 - Asrup Sahu S/o Late Shri Kali Ram Sahu Aged About 62 Years

¶54

34 - Fulsingh S/o Late Shri Sukhram Sahu Aged About 50 Years

¶55

35 - Malti Sahu W/o Shri Malsay Sahu Aged About 49 Years

¶56

36 - Tilochan Yadav S/o Late Shri Bhondu Yadav Aged About 48 Years

¶57

37 - Jhagru Ram Sahu S/o Late Shri Sokho Sahu Aged About 73 Years

¶58

38 - Brijlal Sahu S/o Late Shri Jethu Ram Sahu Aged About 58 Years

¶59

39 - Thanedra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Heera Lal Sahu Aged About 34 Years

¶60

40 - Fulwantin Sahu W/o Asharam Sahu Aged About 35 Years

¶61

41 - Goverdhan Yadav S/o Late Shri Dhelu Ram Yadav Aged About 56 Years

¶62

42 - Prahlad Tarak S/o Late Shri Bhagwat Tarak Aged About 50 Years

¶63

43 - Panchuram Sahu S/o Late Shri Bisru Sahu Aged About 75 Years All are R/o Village- Sonisili Tahsil- Gobra Nawapara District Raipur C.G.

¶64

--- Petitioner(s)

¶65

Versus

¶66

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur-C.G.

¶67

2 - The Collector, District Raipur C.G.

¶68

3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Tahsil Abhanpur District - Raipur C.G.

¶69

4 - The Tahsildar, Tahsil- Gobra Nawapara, District - Raipur C.G.

¶70

5 - The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat - Sonisili Tahsil- Gobra Nawapara District Raipur C.G.

¶71

4

¶72

--- Respondent(s)

¶73

____________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 4 : Ms. Upasna Mehta, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.5/Sarpanch : Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aishwary Diwan, Advocate

¶74

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board

¶75

10/12/2025

¶76

Petitioner in WPC No. 2860 of 2025 has filed this petition seeking following relief (s)

¶77

“a. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of case of no. B/121202501114700080, 202501114700074, 202501114700076, 202501114700104, 202501114700079, 202501114700078, 202501114700075, year 2024-25 from the respondent no. 4.

¶78

b. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/ order/appropriate direction towards the respondent no. 4 to 6 to not create hindrance or disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the aforesaid agriculture land bearing khasra no. 1018, 1136, 1137, 1150, and 352 situated at village Sonisili P.H. No. 42 new 17 RNM Nawapara Tahsil - Gobra Nawapara District – Raipur.

¶79

c. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/ order/appropriate direction towards the respondent no. 4 to compliance the notification of the state government dated 29.07.1997 and its memo dated 17.09.2010 passed by the Collector Raipur (Annexure P-3) within stipulated period.

¶80

5

¶81

d. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/order/ appropriate direction towards the respondent no. 4 to 6 to permit the member of society to cultivating the crops over the land bearing khasra no. 1018, 1136, 1137, 1150, and 352 situated at village Sonisili P.H. No. 42 new 17 RNM Nawapara Tahsil - Gobra Nawapara District - Raipur without any obstruction or hindrance.

¶82

e. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate.”

¶83

Petitioners in WPC No. 4350 of 2025 have filed this petition seeking following relief (s)

¶84

“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of revenue case no. B/121202501114700080 B-121 year 2024-25, revenue case no. B/121-202501114700076 B-121 year 2024-25, revenue case no. B/121-202501114700079 B-121 year 2024-25, revenue case no. B/121-202501114700104 B- 121 year 2024-25, revenue case no. B/121202501114700074 B-121 year 2024-25, revenue case no. B/121-202501114700078 B-121 year 2024-25, revenue case no. B/121-202501114700075 B-121 year 2024-25, revenue case no. B/121-202501114700080 B- 121 year 2024-25 (Annexure P-15) from the respondent no. 4.

¶85

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/order/ appropriate direction towards the respondent no. 4 to 5 to not create hindrance or disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the aforesaid agriculture land bearing khasra no. 1018, 1136, 1137, 1150, and 352 situated at village Sonisilli P.H. No. 42

¶86

6

¶87

new 17 RNM Nawapara Tahsil Gobra Nawapara District Raipur.

¶88

10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/order/ appropriate direction towards the respondent no. 2 to 4 to compliance the notification of the state government dated 29.07.1997 and its memo dated 17.09.2010 (Annexure P-4) and pass an appropriate order for settlement of the land bearing khasra no. 1018, 1136, 1137, 1150, and 352 situated at village Sonisilli P.H. No.42 new 17 RNM Nawapara Tahsil Gobra Nawapara District - Raipur in favour of petitioners.

¶89

10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/order/ appropriate direction towards the respondent no. 4 to 5 to permit the petitioners to cultivating the crops over the land bearing khasra no. 1018, 1136, 1137, 1150, and 352 situated at village Sonisilli P.H. No. 42 new 17 RNM Nawapara Tahsil Gobra Nawapara District Raipur without any obstruction or hindrance.

¶90

10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate.

¶91

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are resident of Village Panchayat – Sonsilli, Tahsil – Gobra Nawapara, District – Raipur (C.G.). They were members of Samuhik Krishi Sahakari Samity Sonsilli, which is registered under the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Society Act, 1960 (In short ‘the Act of 1960’). According to the scheme formulated by the State Government, government land situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Village -Sonisilli was allotted in their favour and accordingly name of Samiti is also recorded in the revenue records. Subsequently, the Samiti went into liquidation, however, land which was allotted to Samiti remain in possession of members of the

¶92

7

¶93

Samiti. When Samiti went into liquidation, proceedings have been initiated to disposes the members of Samiti, against which, petitioners have initially filed a writ petition bearing WP No.3035 of 1995, before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh while considering the grievance raised in the writ petition, interim order of status-quo was passed in favour of petitioner therein on 14.09.1995. After reorganization of State of Madhya Pradesh, the writ petition was transferred to the High Court of Chhattisgarh and it came up for consideration on 15.11.2010. The Court while considering the submission of learned counsel for respective parties therein had disposed of the writ petition directing the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur to consider all the aspects of the matter and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on its own merits, however, the interim order of status-quo which was granted in the writ petition on the first date of haring on 14.09.1995, was continued till the decision of the Registrar Cooperative Society on the issue. He also contended that the proceedings was thereafter considered by the Deputy Registrar, who kept the matter pending and therefore, petitioners herein have filed writ petition before the High Court bearing WPC No. 3326 of 2021, which was disposed on 06.08.2024 directing the Deputy Registrar to decide the proceeding before it within specified time and the Deputy Registrar has concluded the proceeding only observing that relevant records are not available and therefore, it is not rational to reach any conclusion. The said order of the Deputy Registrar was not in consonance with the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 15.11.2010 passed in WP No. 3035 of 1995.

¶94

8

¶95

Petitioners aggrieved with the decision of the Deputy Registrar has filed an appeal before the Joint Registrar, which is still pending consideration. He contended that in the meantime, petitioners came to know about the circular issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh dated 29.07.1997, which was in favour of petitioners, who were members of the Society, which went into liquidation, to allot the land to ex-members of the society who are in possession of land of society. Accordingly, the applications were again submitted before the Collector and the Collector has issued a memo to the Sub-Divisional Officer to consider the claim of petitioners for allotment of land in light of the circular issued by the State Government dated 29.07.1997. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), thereafter directed the Naib Tahsildar for initiating proceedings. Accordingly Naib Tahsildar has issued proclamation in village and thereafter has also called for the report from the Revenue Inspector and Patwari about the possession of petitioners. Tahsildar instead of recording the proceedings based on the report and forwarding the same to the Sub-Divisional Officer have decided the proceedings finally considering the report of the Revenue Inspector and Patwari that land on which the claim is made by petitioners is an open land and petitioners are not in possession of the land, which is erroneous. Petitioners are in possession of the land of the Samiti, went into liquidation being it members.

¶96

Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for petitioners and would submit that respondent No.5 is elected Sarpanch, he is not having any personal grievance with regard to proceedings drawn pursuant to the directives of Collector, however, the report submitted by Revenue

¶97

9

¶98

Inspector and Patwari is after preparation of Panchanama, villagers including the petitioners were also present, in which it is recorded that the petitioners who were claiming rights over the land were not in possession and accordingly report is submitted. Tahsildar considering the report has passed the order, which cannot be said to be erroneous. He also contended that as the land is recorded as government land in revenue records, was open, the village panchayat has submitted proposal before the concerned authorities and has sought fund under the scheme floated by the state Government for plantation and construction of pond under the employment scheme. Fund is also sanctioned and the sanction letter is enclosed along with reply. Tahsildar has acted upon the proceeding as it was transferred to him by Sub-Divisional Officer, which is also recorded in the order of the Tahsildar in opening paragraph. He further submits that according to the contents of the order of the Tahsildar, it is appearing that SubDivisional Officer has further transferred the proceedings to the Tahsildar for taking decision on the proceedings and accordingly the Tahsildar has considered and taken decision finally recording that petitioners were not in possession of the land.

¶99

Learned State counsel supports the order passed by the Tahsildar and would submit that Tahsildar has followed the procedure and has called for report from the revenue officials with regard to possession of the persons claiming their right on the land, which is recorded as a government land and grazing land in the revenue records. She contended that order passed by the Tahsildar is not under challenge in this writ petition, therefore, no relief as prayed for by petitioners can be granted.

¶100

10

¶101

At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that against the order of the Tahsildar dated 09.06.2025, petitioners have filed an appeal before the Collector, which was not entertained observing that it falls under subject of B-121(Miscellaneous). Petitioners thereafter have filed revision under Section 50 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, before the Board of Revenue, however, the Board of Revenue has dismissed the revision for want of jurisdiction observing that allotment of land on patta is under the revenue book circular, therefore, the Board of Revenue is having no jurisdiction to consider the sustainability of the order passed by the Sub-ordinate authority.

¶102

I have heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶103

The main grievance of petitioners raised in this petition is that petitioners were members of Samuhik Krishi Sahakari Samity Sonsilli. Samity was registered under the Act of 1960. According to the scheme of the State Government, some land situated within the village Sonsilli was allotted in favour of Samity. The Samity after some interval of time went into liquidation. It is also the claim of petitioners that when Samity went into liquidation, petitioners were tried to be evicted from the land possessed by them, through the Samity, against which they filed writ petition in which High Court of Madhya Pradesh has granted interim order in the nature of status-quo in their favour, which continued till disposal of the writ petition in the year 2010 directing the Registrar to consider and take decision on the issue raised by the petitioners therein and interim order was directed to be continued, till the decision of Registrar. The another point which is raised by petitioners is that

¶104

11

¶105

after the Samity went into liquidation, erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh had issued a circular/memo directing the Commissioners and the Collectors of the State to consider the claim of ex-members of Samity, which were liquidated, for allotment of land possessed by them being members of the Samity as per their entitlement. The Collector taking note of the circular of the State Government issued on 29.07.1997 has issued a direction to Sub-Divisional Officer (R) i.e. respondent No.3 to consider the claim of petitioners keeping in mind the notification of the State Government of the year 1997 and to allot the land as per their entitlement. Sub-Divisional Officer thereafter further sent the matter to the Tahsildar, who decided the entitlement of petitioner stating that petitioners were not in possession of land based on the report submitted by Revenue Inspector and Patwari, however, the claim of petitioners are that they are in possession of land allotted in the name of society since the date of allotment i.e. from the year 1974-75.

¶106

The Sub-Divisional Officer has not followed the directives of Collector to decide the entitlement of petitioners, but further delegated it to Tahsildar, which in the facts of the case is erroneous. As the claim of petitioners is with regard to allotment of land pursuant to the notification issued by the State government in the year 1997, which was also taken note by the Collector while issuing direction to the SubDivisional Officer, therefore, in the facts of the case, these writ petitions are disposed of permitting petitioners to submit fresh application before Collector challenging the order of the Tahsildar and if such applications are submitted, the Collector shall consider the same and decide it in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within period

¶107

12

¶108

of three months from the date of receipt of application keeping in mind the notification issued by the State Government dated 29.07.1997.

¶109

Till the decision is taken by the Collector on the application to be submitted by petitioners, status-quo as it exists today with respect to the land in question shall be maintained by the parties.

¶110

With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶111

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶112

Balram

Vijay Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Yadav 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Dolly Sajumon Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narottam Prasad Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Urmila Sarkar Vs General Manager and Right to Information Officer

Ramkumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Indus Tower Limited, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Reena Bai Nishad Vs Jila Sahkari Kendriya Maryadit Bank