Smt. Nemin Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 170 of 2026

1 - Smt. Nemin Bai W/o Shri Rupram Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Saldha, Tahsil - Devarbija, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

REKHA

¶7

SINGH 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - The Collector Bemetara, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶9

3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Berla, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶10

4 - The Tahsildar Berla, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶11

5 - The Tahsildar Up-Tahsil, Devarbija, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶12

6 - The Branch Manager Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Saldha, Tahsil - Berla, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶13

7 - Halka Patwari Patwari Halka No. 29, Village - Saldha, Tahsil - Berla, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate For State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A. along with Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, G.A.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶16

10.02.2026

¶17

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s):

¶18

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to the case from the respondent authorities.

¶19

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to the respondent authorities to provide token and registration in favour of petitioner in respect of land bearing khasra no. 1279/2 for sale of paddy in Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Saldha, Tahsil-Berla, DistrictBemetara (C.G.).

¶20

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any

¶21

-2-

¶22

other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case including cost of litigation.”

¶23

Mr. Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a lease holder of agriculture land bearing Survey No.1279/2 admeasuring 1.0400 hectares situated at Village Saldha, Patwari Circle No.29, Tehsil-Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.). He would further submit that the petitioner was registered with Sewa Sahakari Samiti Saldha for sale of paddy. He would contend that a token was generated in her favour on 29^th of January, 2026 for 30^th of January, 2026. He would further contend that it was not possible for the petitioner to transport the paddy from her house to paddy procurement centre within a short span of time. He would submit that subsequent token was generated on 4^th of February, 2026 and it was rescheduled for 5^th of February, 2026 but that fact was never intimated to the petitioner, therefore, she could not sale the paddy. He would further submit that the respondent authorities may be directed to purchase the paddy from the petitioner in accordance with existing paddy procurement scheme.

¶24

On the other hand, Mr. Mishra, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State would submit that for the first time, token was generated on 29^th of January, 2026 for 30^th of January, 2026. He would further submit that on 30^th of January, 2026, the Revenue Authorities visited house of the petitioner but it was locked, therefore, physical verification was not done. He would contend that automatically token was rescheduled for 5^th of February, 2026 and the petitioner was duly intimated but she failed to turn-up, therefore, the paddy of the petitioner could not be purchased. He would further contend that the extended

¶25

date for procurement of paddy expired on 6^th of February, 2026.

¶26

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

¶27

The respondents have not disputed the fact that the petitioner is a resident and agriculturist of Village-Saldha. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was registered with Sewa Sahakari Samiti Saldha. It appears that twice, tokens were generated in favour of the petitioner but due to unavoidable circumstances, the paddy could not be procured.

¶28

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation before respondent No.2/Collector, Bemetara within a period of 10 days from today and in turn, the said authority shall decide the representation so made by the petitioner. The authority concerned shall physically verify the yield of particular year and thereafter, the competent authority shall reschedule token for procurement of paddy. The entire exercise shall be completed by the concerned Collector preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29

With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶32

Rekha

Smt. Nemin Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nemin Bai 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Archana Mishra (in Person) Vs Andhra Bank

Awadhesh Narayan Mishra (in Person) Vs Andhra Bank

Rupesh Kumar Verma Vs C.G. State Information Commission

Kalam Ansari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shri Krishna Nagar Residents Association Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dashru Gond (Since Dead) Vs State of Chhattisgarh