Mulchand Vs Kiritram

learned Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Circuit Court at Raipur in Revenue Case No.R.N./21/R/A-70/21/2023 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that Respondent No.1 has filed filed an application under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as CGLRC, 1959) on 07/06/2017 before the Naib Tehsildar, Sub-teshil Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. for reinstatement of possession of the land bearing Khasra No.1252, admeasuring 0.60 Hectare, situated at Village Amakoni, P.H. No.31, R.I. Circle Jaraud, Tehsil Simga. It is submitted in the application that a demarcation was conducted on 16/05/2017 with respect to the subject land in which the possession of the petitioner was found. He is the owner of the subject land and therefore he filed an application for reinstatement of the possession. The Tehsildar after hearing the parties passed its order on 18/03/2020 and allowed the application filed by Respondent No.1 and ordered for reinstatement of the possession of the land bearing Khasra No.1252, admeasuring 0.60 Hectare and also directed to take compensation @ Rs.500/- per hectare per year to the Respondent No.1 and also to furnish his bond to comply with the order.

¶22

Order dated 18/03/2020 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Suhela was challenged by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Simga, by filing a first appearing bearing Revenue Case No.202006211000004A/6, Year 2019-20, wherein he raised the ground that the petitioner is cultivating subject property since 20-22 years and the application under Section 250 of the CGLRC, 1959 has not been

¶23

3 / 9

¶24

filed within 02 years from the alleged dispossession of the Respondent No.1. It is also a ground of challenge by the petitioner before the SDO (R) that the land was already demarcated earlier in the year 2015, however, only to bring the case within limitation, the Respondent No.1 again got the land demarcated and filed his application without disclosing that the land has already been demarcated in the year 2015. The appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the SDO ( R), Simga on 26/07/2021 holding that the Respondent No.1 has filed his application within the prescribed period of limitation from the date of demarcation dated 07/06/2017.

¶25

The petitioner further challenged the order passed by the subordinate Revenue Courts before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, which has also been dismissed by the order dated 29/12/2022 passed in Appeal Case No.202109970100008275/A-70 Year 2020-21, Village Amakoni, Tehsil Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Circuit Court Raipur, by filing its revision bearing Revenue Case No.R.N./21/R/A-70/21/2023 which has also been dismissed on 23/08/2024, which is subject matter in the present writ petition.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has specifically raised the ground that they are cultivating the subject property since 20-22 years back and the application of Respondent No.1 is barred by limitation as it has been filed beyond the period of 02 years as prescribed under Section 250 (1) (i-a) (b) of the CGLRC, 1959. He would also submit that earlier also the Respondent No.1 got his land

¶27

4 / 9

¶28

demarcated in the year 2015, however, the said fact has been suppressed by him in the application filed under Section 250 of the CGLRC, 1959. He would next submit that the objection raised by the petitioner before the SDO (R), Commissioner and the Board of Revenue has not been considered in view of the provisions contained in Section 250 of the CGLRC, 1959 and mechanically proceeded to decide the matter. He would also submit that the CGLRC, 1959 specifically provides for 02 years limitation for filing the revision from the date of dispossession and in absence of the same the revenue authorities should not have allowed the same.

¶29

He would also submit that in the application filed by the petitioner under Section 250 of the CGLRC, 1959 there is no mention about the fact from which date the petitioner has dispossessed the Respondent No.1 and in absence of such fact the order cannot be passed for reinstatement of the subject land. He would therefore, submit that the instant petition may be allowed and the impugned orders may be set aside.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and he would submit that when the Respondent No.1 got the land demarcated in the year 2017 then he came to know about the encroachment made by the petitioner over his land, therefore, he moved his application for reinstatement of the possession before the Tehsildar. He would further submit that the petitioner has not raised any objection with regard to maintainability of the application on the ground of delay or the limitation period. He would next submit that the petitioner contested the case on

¶31

5 / 9

¶32

merits and the Naib Tehsildar has rightly passed the order directing for reinstatement of the possession of the subject land in favour of Respondent No.1. He would next submit that there is concurrent finding of the revenue Courts against the petitioner and this Court while invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot reconsider the merits of the case. The petitioner being an encroacher has no equity in his favour and has no right or title over the property of Respondent No.1 and cannot retain his possession. He would lastly submit that under the circumstances the revenue authorities have rightly directed the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the subject land, therefore, the instant writ petition does not have any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition.

¶34

The issue involved in the present case is with respect to Section 250 of the CGLRC, 1959. The Respondent No.1 has filed his application on 07/06/2017 before the Naib Tehsildar, Suhela for reinstatement of possession of the subject land bearing Khasra No.1252, admeasuring 0.60 hectare, situated at Village Amakoni. In the said application Respondent No.1 has averred that when he got his land demarcated on 16/05/2017 he came to know about the encroachment made by the petitioner and then he filed his application.

¶35

It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2015 Respondent No.1 has already got his land demarcated but he has not claimed any possession

¶36

6 / 9

¶37

on the subject land. The petitioner has filed a copy of the order dated 22/02/2017 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Suhela in Revenue Case No.01A/70 Year 2015-16 vide Annexure P/8. From perusal of the document Annexure P/8 it transpires that the Respondent No.1 had already filed an application under Section 250 of the CGLRC, 1959 before the Naib Tehsildar on the basis of the said demarcation report and the said and the said application of the Respondent No.1 has been dismissed vide order dated 22/02/2017 holding that the demarcation conducted by the revenue authorities is not in accordance with law. Again in the year 2017 Respondent No.1 got his land demarcated and again filed an application before the Naib Tehsildar which was allowed, however, there is no mention about the fact of earlier demarcation or the earlier application filed by Respondent No.1in the subsequent application dated 07/06/2017.

¶38

When the petitioner raised a specific ground that they are in possession of the subject land since 20-22 years back the same should have been adjudicated, however, it appears that the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities i.e. Tehsildar, SDO (R) and the Commissioner, this fact has not been dealt. Section 250 (1) (i-a) (b) of the CGLRC, 1959 of the CGLRC, 1959 would be relevant which is reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶39

“250. Reinstatement of bhumiswami improperly dispossessed.-

¶40

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

¶41

7 / 9

¶42

xxx xxx xxx (1-a) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

¶43

(b) in case of a bhumiswami not covered by clause (a), within two years from the date of dispossession or from the date on which possession of such person becomes unauthorised, as the case may be.”

¶44

It is also necessary to notice here the application filed by the petitioner on 07/06/2017 which reads as under:-

¶45

यहकि�, आवेद�एवंअनावेद�नामएवंपतेउपरो्ሹानुसारहैं।

¶46

यह कि�, आवेद� �े स्वाकिमत्व �ी �ृकि� भूकिम खसरा नं. 1252, र�बा 0.60 हे. भूकिम, ्ቇाम आमा�ोनी, प.ह.नं.-31, रा.किन.मं.-tjkSn , तह.-सिसमगा, सि'लाबलौदाबा'ार, भाटापारा में ቝኌस्-त है।

¶47

यह कि�, आवेद� अपने स्वाकिमत्व �ी भूकिम �ा र�बा �म होने �े संदेह पर इस माननीय �े सम्ቌ अपने स्वाकिमत्व �ी �ृकि� भूकिम ख.नं. 1252, र�बा 0.60 हे. भूकिम, ्ቇाम आमा�ोनी, प.ह.नं.-31, रा.किन.मं.-tjkSn, तह.-सिसमगा, सि'लाबलौदाबा'ार, भाटापारा छ.ग. में सीमां�न बाबत आवेदन ्ቚस्तुत कि�या गया -ा।

¶48

यह कि�, आवेद� �े उपरो्ሹ वቓኌ4त स्वाकिमत्व �ी भूकिम �ा सीमां�न कि�ये 'ाने �ा आदेश माननीय नायब तहसीलदार-lqgsyk �े कि�ये 'ाने पर रा'स्व किनरी्ቌ� tjkSn ने माननीय न्यायालय �ा आवेदन ्ቚ ा्቎ �र किदनां�

¶49

8 / 9

¶50

16/05/2017 ख.नं. 1252, र�बा 0.60 हे. भूकिम, ्ቇाम आमा�ोनी, प.ह.नं.-31, रा.किन.मं.-tjkSn, तह.-सिसमगा, सि'ला-बलौदाबा'ार, भाटापारा छ.ग. �ा सीमां�न कि�ये 'ाने �े प्ቐात अपने ्ቚतितवेदन माननीय न्यायालय सम्ቌ ्ቚस्तुत कि�या गया -ा। उपरो्ሹ सीमां�न ्ቚतितवेदन में ख.नं. 1252, र�बा 0.60 हे. भूकिम कि�रिरत राम, किपता-cSlk[kw तेली �ा भू-स्वामी ह� �ी भूकिम होना बताया है त-ा उ्ሹ भूकिम ख.नं. 1252, र�बा 0.60 हे. भूकिम पर अनावेद� मूलचंद, किपता अंगद BsBokj �ा �ब्'ा होना पाया गया है, सि'से लाल स्याही से तिचन्हांकि�त कि�या गया है।

¶51

यह कि�, आवेद� �ी भूकिम पर अनावेद� किबना कि�सी ह� अति=�ार �े �ब्'ा �र �ृकि� �ाय> कि�या 'ा रहा है सि'से �ब्'े से मु्ሹ �र आवेद� अपनी स्वाकिमत्व �ी भूकिम �ा आति=पत्य ्ቚा्቎ �र उपयोग-उपभोग ह� अति=�ार ्ቚा्቎ है। अनावेद� से आवेद� �ी भूकिम ख.नं. 1252, र�बा 0.60 हे. भूकिम से �ब्'ा ्ቚ दान कि�या 'ाये।

¶52

अतः माननीय न्यायालय से ्ቚा->ना है कि� �ृपया आवेद� �ा आवेदन प्ቔ स्वी�ार �र ख.नं. 1252, र�बा 0.60 हे. भूकिम ्ቇाम आमा�ोनी, प.ह.नं.31, रा.किन.मं.-tjkSn, तह.-सिसमगा, सि'ला-बलौदाबा'ार, भाटापारा छ.ग. �ा �ब्'ा ्ቚदान कि�ये 'ाने �ा आदेश पारिरत कि�या 'ावे।

¶53

When there is specific limitation period provided under Section 250 (1) (i-a) (b) of the CGLRC, 1959, the Respondent No.1 has to satisfy that his application is within the time prescribed in the CGLRC, 1959, however, there is no mention about the said limitation. Further the orders passed by the SDO (R ), Commissioner and Board of Revenue does not deal with the limitation period as per the provisions of Section 250 (1) (i-a) (b) of the CGLRC, 1959 and the Respondent No.1 has failed to establish that he was dispossessed by the petitioners within 02

¶54

9 / 9

¶55

years prior to the date of his application filed before the Naib Tehsildar. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Naib Tehsildar, SDO (R), Commissioner and Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the order on the application filed by Respondent No.1 under Section 250 of the CGLRC, 1959 and the said orders are not sustainable.

¶56

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed and all the orders passed by the revenue authorities i.e. the Naib Tehsildar, SDO (R), Commissioner and Board of Revenue are set aside. The Respondent No.1 is at liberty to redress his grievance before the appropriate forum as available to him under the law.

¶57

SD/-

¶58

SD/- ( Ravindra Kumar Agrawal ) JUDGE

¶59

ashu

Mulchand v. Kiritram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mulchand v. Kiritram

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

Suraj Bai Rathiya Vs Durga Bai Rathiya

Jaipal @ Korwa Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Schroder Hydraulics Private Limited Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited

Smt. Mukesh Dagar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Arun Kumar Vs Indrajet Pandey

Loknath Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh