Ismail Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Town And Country Planning, Mahanadi Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 – Chairman, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Division Durg, District Durg (C.G.).

¶12

3 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Durg, District Durg (C.G.).

¶13

4 - Collector, District Durg (C.G.).

¶14

	... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s)	: Smt. Fouzia Mirza, learned Senior Counsel appears along with Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 & 4/State	: Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
For Respondent No.2	: None, though served
For Respondent No.3	: Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate.

¶15

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

¶16

CAV Order

¶17

By virtue of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the action of the respondent/State authorities as after acquiring the land held by his forefathers for public purpose, i.e. for extension of Durg city by the then Madhya Pradesh Housing Board, has surreptitiously sold the land

¶18

2

¶19

bearing Khasra No.491 admeasuring 1.60 acres, Khasra No.483 and 484/2 admeasuring 1.20 acres to the private persons by forging the revenue papers without releasing the alleged land, for wrongful gain. It is alleged further that the land bearing Khasra No.941/4, which has not been acquired by the State authorities, has also not been returned to the petitioner and is being retained by the Housing Board without its acquisition in the name of beautification of the city. As the action of the State authorities is against the statutory procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, therefore, the petitioner has been constrained to file this petition for the reliefs mentioned at paragraph 10 as under :-

¶20

(10.i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce all the relevant records relating to case of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal.

¶21

(10.ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the sale deeds executed in favour of private persons in respect of the land which was acquired, as null and void and non-existent in the eye of law.

¶22

(10.iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authorities to return the land bearing Khasra No.941/4 situated at Village-Kasaridih, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (CG) to the petitioner which has not been acquired and is lying vacant.

¶23

(10.iv) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to restore the rights and title of the land bearing Khasra No.491, 483 & 484/2 in favour of the petitioner, which was of the ownership of grand-fathers of the petitioner and said to have been acquired for public purpose but subsequently sold to private persons.

¶24

(10.v) Any other relief or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶25

According to the petitioner, the land bearing Khasra No.491 admeasuring 1.60 acre, 483 and 484/2 admeasuring 1.20 acres and Khasra No.941/4 admeasuring 0.52 acre situated at Village Kasaridih, Tahsil and District Durg, owned by his forefathers was acquired by the

¶26

3

¶27

then Madhya Pradesh Housing Board in the year 1959-60 for extension of Durg city and subsequently, the award was passed for grant of compensation in lieu of the land acquired. It is alleged further that the petitioner’s grand-father was the owner of the land bearing Khasra No.941, which was acquired, but the chunk of land bearing Khasra No.941/4 is still vacant and has not been acquired by the State authorities and the petitioner came to know about this fact when no development was done by the State authorities on it and when he tried to take the alleged land in his possession, the State authorities have objected and restrained him from taking its possession by informing orally that the said land, i.e. the land bearing Khasra No.941/4, has already been acquired. Further contention of the petitioner is that under the Right to Information Act, 2005, he came to know that the land bearing Khasra No.941/4 has not been acquired by the Municipal Corporation, Durg. It is the further contention of the petitioner that, based upon his further correspondences with the Revenue Department, it was revealed to him that the land, which has been acquired in the year 1959-60 by the then State of Madhya Pradesh for extension of Durg city, has been sold clandestinely to the private persons through registered deed of sale and now they are in its possession. The petitioner has, thereafter applied for obtaining the copy of the same. It is contended further that the object behind acquisition of the said land is for bonafide public purpose for extension of Durg city, but after acquiring the same, the respondent/State authorities without releasing the land and that by forging the revenue records, have misled the petitioner’s grand-father to believe that their land has been acquired and thereafter, sold the same to the private

¶28

4

¶29

persons for wrongful gain. The petitioner has, therefore, been constrained to file the instant petition seeking the reliefs mentioned herein-above.

¶30

In reply, the respondents No.1 & 4/State has stated that the petition as framed, which involves disputed questions of fact, would not be maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. It is contested further on the ground that the alleged land situated at Village Kasaridih, Tahsil and District Durg, has never been acquired at any point of time by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and since the same has not been acquired, therefore, it cannot be said that the land held by the petitioner was sold to the private persons in a clandestine manner, as alleged by him. It is contended further, while referring to the Adhikar Abhilekh, which is at Page No.49 of the petition, that the Khasra No.941/4 admeasuring 0.24 hectare was purchased by one Bahram from Baldar Khan under the registered deed of sale, dated 26.09.1956, i.e. much prior to the initiation of the land acquisition proceedings and, that by referring to Khasra Panchshala (Annexure R-1) for year 197980 to 1983-84, submits further that the said land has been recorded in the name of one Farooq Siraj Bahram and others and, contended further that the said land has been changed as evident from Khasra Panchshala for the year 1995-96 to 1998-99 and also for the year 2005-06 to 2008-09 and part of the land bearing Khasra No.941/4 admeasuring 0.006 hectare has been recorded in the name of one Shri D. G. Mani as evident from the Khasra entries (Annexure R-2).

¶31

It is contested further that the land bearing Khasra No.483 and 484/2 was never acquired by the State and those lands have been sold to

¶32

5

¶33

one Heeralal by private sale vide entries made in the revenue records (Annexure R-3) for the year 1954-55 and thereafter, the land was recorded in the name of Heeralal Bullu and Motilal Bullu and revenue records of the subsequent years would reveal the fact that out of the said lands, further sales have been made in favour of Punnuram Motilal and Sanjay Kumar Radhelal while furnishing the document as Annexure R-4. It was, thus, contended by the respondent authorities/ State that the alleged transactions are purely private transactions and, since the State has never acquired those lands, therefore, the question of transfer by the State in favour of the private individuals would not arise at all, as alleged by the petitioner herein. Insofar as Khasra No.491 is concerned, it is contended, based upon the petitioner’s own pleading, that the part of the said land has been sold to one Madanlal by executing a registered deed of sale, dated 22.05.2000 and, hence, the question of any transfer of the said land by the State does not arise at all. The said land, as is shown in Annexure R-3, was sold by the ancestors of the petitioner in favour of one Fagua and his name is shown to be recorded in the revenue papers (Annexure R-6), which was continued in his name upto 1993-94 and, ultimately, the said land was sold in favour of Smt. Anita Kothari and Sugani Bai, as admitted by the petitioner himself.

¶34

Further contention of the respondent authorities is that though the petitioner is praying for declaration of alleged sales as null and void, but the person, in whose favour, the alleged land was sold, has not been impleaded as a party respondent, therefore, the petition as

¶35

6

¶36

framed suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties and, deserves to be dismissed.

¶37

The Respondent No.3-Municipal Corporation, Durg, in its reply has contested the claim by submitting, inter alia, that the Revenue Department has conducted demarcation of the land bearing Khasra No.941/4 and the demarcation report dated 12.04.2019 (Annexure R- 3/3), submitted by the concerned Revenue Inspector before the Tahsildar, Durg, would show that the alleged land does not endorse the name of petitioner-Ismile Khan as Bhumiswami Rights and, thus contended further that the petitioner is seeking the alleged land, bearing Khasra No.941/4, however, the same is not belonging to him.

¶38

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the alleged land was owned by their predecessor-in-interest and was acquired by the State Government for public purpose, but it was clandestinely sold to the private persons and therefore, the alleged sales as made deserves to be declared as null and void and, contended further with regard to the land bearing Khasra No.941/4, which is evident from the revenue papers that though, it was recorded in the name of the petitioner’s forefathers, yet without acquiring the same, it has been utilized by the respondents, as evidenced by the demarcation report dated 12.04.2019. It is contended further that although, the part of the said land was sold to Bahram by his forefather, namely, Baldar Khan under the registered deed of sale, dated 26.09.1956 for a consideration of Rs.1900/-, but, since the remaining part has been utilized by the respondent authorities even without acquiring the same, therefore, the respondent authorities are

¶39

7

¶40

liable to restore the possession of it to the petitioner as the right of the petitioner is protected under Article 311(A) of the Constitution of India. In support, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed her reliance upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Tukaram Kana Joshi And Others Through Power-ofAttorney Holder Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation And Others , reported in (2013) 1 SCC 353 , Vidya Devi Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569 , Hari Krishna Mandir Trust Vs. State of Maharashtra And Others, reported in (2020) 9 SCC 356, Kolkata Municipal Corporation And Another Vs. Bimal Kumar Shah And Others, reported in (2024) 10 SCC 533 and The State of Haryana & Another Vs. Amin Lal (Since Deceased) Through His LRS & Others, reported in 2024 INSC 875.

¶41

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents submits that since the petitioner is praying for declaration to the effect that the registered deed of sale executed in favour of the private persons even without impleading them as a party respondent, it suffers from non-joinder of the necessary parties, as such, the petition as framed is not maintainable and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed in limine. It is contended further, while referring to the averments made by the petitioner, that since the disputed questions of fact are involved in the matter, therefore, the petitioner, instead of filing the instant petition, ought to have approached the competent Civil Court having its territorial jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance.

¶42

8

¶43

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire papers carefully.

¶44

From perusal of the record, it appears that the land in question, mentioned herein-above, owned by the petitioner’s forefathers, was alleged to have been acquired by the Respondent/State authorities in the year 1959-60 and alleged to have been sold by the Respondent/State authorities to the individuals. In order to get the deed of sale declared as null and void, it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to implead those individuals, who have purchased the property from the respondent authorities. However, neither any document has been placed on record as such, nor the persons, who purchased the same, have been impleaded as a party respondent, therefore, in absence of those individuals, who have acquired their right, title and interest, the claim as made by the petitioner seeking declaration of sales executed in their favour, as null and void, cannot be adjudicated in this petition.

¶45

Although, it appears from perusal of the demarcation report dated 12.04.2019 (Annexure R-3) that the land bearing Khasra No.941/4 was shown to be constructed as “Kamal Vatika”, but, no order of demarcation, required to be made under Section 129 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 by the concerned Revenue Authority, has been placed on record, therefore, no reliance could be placed upon such a report. Even otherwise, it appears from the petitioner’s own averment that the part of the alleged land bearing Khasra No.941/4 admeasuring 0.24 hectare was sold by the predecessor-in-interest, namely, Baldar Khan to Bahram under the sale

¶46

9

¶47

deed, dated 26.09.1956 for a consideration of Rs.1900/-, therefore, it is difficult to hold that which portion of it has alleged to have been remained with the petitioner and/or, was utilized by the respondents, so as to hold that the petitioner is entitled to get the restoration of the possession of the same, based upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-referr49ed matters as relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶48

It, thus, appears that the entire dispute, as has been alleged herein by the petitioner, could be determined only by the competent Civil Court having its territorial jurisdiction and such a relief under these circumstances cannot be entertained while exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶49

The petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s).

¶50

SD/(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

¶51

Tumane

Ismail Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ismail Khan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chain Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Manish Kumar Yadav Vs Union of India

Pitamber Prasad Singhroul Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dudhawa Bandh Ka Prabhavit Kishan Majdoor Kalyan Samiti, Aamgaon Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Krishna Kumar Parihar Vs Bhagwan Singh

Seevan Das Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh