Mani Ram Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Throgh The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Managemanet, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Collector Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Gram Panchayat Torla Through Its Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Torla, Police Station Patewa, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

11/04/2025

¶18

Heard Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel for the petitioner as well

¶19

as Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate for the

¶20

2

¶21

State/respondent/s.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has moved an application for grant of patta/lease of the land and according to him he is in possession of the land in question.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that the Collector, District Mahasamund has considered the application and requisitioned the report from the SDO (R), Mahasamund. The SDO concerned has produced the report dated 03.12.2021. According to the said report the land in question situated at a village Torla, District Mahasamund and the petitioner is not in possession of the said land. It has been stated that the land is recorded as grass land and for which Gram Panchayat – Torla has passed a resolution for construction of Commercial Complex. Earlier the petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing WPC No. 4230 of 2021 in which vide order dated 22.10.2021, this Court has passed order directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner and to pass an appropriate order on merits, accordingly, the case of the petitioner has been considered by the Collector, District - Mahasamund in which it has been clearly stated that though there is recommendation of the Nayab Tehsildar, Patewa, however, from the report submitted by the concerned SDO, it appears that the land is situated at the concerned village and the petitioner is not having possession of the said land. Further the statement of Maniram was recorded in which he has categorically

¶24

3

¶25

stated that the land bearing Khasra No.61/1 and 62 P.H. No.19, Revenue Circle Patewa, District Mahasamund, total area is 25 - 30 decimal he keeps his truck in the said land and from this land he is going to his Dhaba as he is owner of the Dhaba. Prior to 2 to 3 months he has filed an application seeking the possession of land in question and also stated that he is having 5 acres of land in the name of his wife and about 60 decimal of land is also there and therefore the land which he is seeking be granted in his favour by giving Bhoomi Swami right in his favour.

¶26

After taking evidence of Maniram, the Collector concerned has considered the entire aspect of the matter on the basis of Circular dated 11.09.2019 which is in respect of grant of lease for Nazul land in the Township, whereas, the land which is being sought by the petitioner relates to village land. The Collector concerned has dismissed the application holding that since the applicant is owner of 5 acres of land, his wife is also having 60 decimal of land, as such, the petitioner cannot be considered to be a landless person.

¶27

There is an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1132 of 2011 and SLP(C) No.3109 of 2011, by which the land which has been reserved by the State for general people cannot be granted on lease, as such, the Collector concerned has dismissed the same.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been given opportunity of hearing & order has been passed on

¶29

4

¶30

the back of the petitioner.

¶31

From the perusal of the order, it is apparent that the petitioner has been given proper opportunity of hearing, his statements were also recorded and thereafter appropriate order has been passed. From the order itself, it is apparent that the petitioner is not a landless person, as such, he cannot be granted lease, as submitted by the counsel for the respondent-State.

¶32

I heave heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. From the bare perusal of the order it is apparent that a reasoned order has been passed stating that the petitioner is having 5 acres of land and his wife is also having 60 decimal of land, the land in question is a village land, as such, as per Circular dated 11.09.2019 is not applicable to the petitioner, since the petitioner is not a landless person, he cannot be granted lease for the land which the petitioner is praying for.

¶33

Accordingly, this petition is having no merits and is liable to be dismissed, therefore this petition is hereby dismissed .

¶34

Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶35

Ravi Mandavi

Mani Ram Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani Ram Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepan Chakraborty Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tikeshwari Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manish Dixit Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bank of Baroda Vs District Magistrate

M/S Rms Power Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Surendra Jaiswal Vs State of C.G.