Tirath Kumar Gabel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:30393

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 722 of 2020

¶6

1 - Tirath Kumar Gabel S/o Darbari Lal Gabel Aged About 44 Years R/o Village And Post Pota, Police Station And Tahsil Malkharouda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Yadram Khunte S/o Narayan Prasad Khunte Aged About 45 Years Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Pota, Janpad Panchayat Malkharouda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Commissioner Bilaspur Division District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Collector District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶14

6 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Malkharouda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶15

7 - Tahsildar Tahsil Malkharouda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶16

2

¶17

8 - Tarkeshwar Singh Gabel S/o Sundar Singh Gabel R/o Village And Post Pota, Police Station And Tahsil Malkharouda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶18

... Respondent(s)

¶19

For Petitioners	: None, even in two rounds
For State	: Mr. Lav Sharma, P.L.

¶20

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶21

Order On Board

¶22

03-07-2025

¶23

1) Petitioners have preferred this petition assailing the order passed by Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue dated 27.01.2018 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners has been rejected and orders passed by the revenue authorities have been affirmed.

¶24

2) Facts of the present case are that petitioner No. 1 was elected as Sarpanch of Village–Pota, Tehsil–Malkharouda, District–Janjgir Champa (C.G.) and petitioner No. 2 was elected as its Secretary. Respondent No. 8 made complaint against petitioners to the effect that they uprooted 495 trees while digging the ponds under MGNREGA scheme ; inquiry was conducted ; statement of witnesses were recorded ; inquiry report was submitted wherein allegations were found proved. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sakti registered the case and after perusal of inquiry report and other documents, found petitioners guilty of illegally uprooting 495 trees while digging ponds and initiated proceeding under Chhattisgarh Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam against petitioner. The said order was challenged by the petitioners by filing appeal

¶25

3

¶26

before Collector, Janjgir Champa which was dismissed vide order dated 09.10.2012. Thereafter, petitioners preferred second appeal before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division and same was dismissed vide order dated 16.05.2013. Subsequently, petitioners also preferred revision before Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.01.2018.

¶27

3) There is no representation on behalf of petitioners in two rounds.

¶28

4) In this petition, it is pleaded that the orders passed by revenue authorities are bad in law on the ground that petitioner No. 1 has been disqualified for period of six years without there being any clinching material to prove the charges. It is also pleaded that specific reasons were not recorded against the petitioners and arbitrary orders have been passed by the authorities.

¶29

5) Learned State counsel submits that there were serious allegations against the petitioner and inquiry was conducted. He further submits petitioners have been found guilty of illegally uprooting 495 trees while digging up ponds under MGNREGA scheme and there is concurrent findings record by the Collector, Divisional Commissioner and Board of Revenue against the petitioners. He prays that this petition deserved to be dismissed.

¶30

6) Heard.

¶31

7) Evidently, Collector, Divisional Commissioner and Board of Revenue have recorded categorical finding to the effect that petitioners illegally uprooted 495 trees without the authority of law while constructing ponds. Also, petitioners failed to rebut the

¶32

4

¶33

findings recorded by the revenue authorities.

¶34