Keshavram Sahu S/O Late Shri Jagatram Sahu (Died) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 5

CGHC010090062021

2026:CGHC:28075

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 1841 of 2021

¶7

1 - Keshavram Sahu (Died) Through Legal Representatives (Legal Heirs Added As Per Hon’ble Court Order Dated 14.07.2025)

¶8

1.a : Santwana Sahu D/o Late Keshavram Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No.-24, Janjgiri, Bazar Chowk, P.S. - Kumhari, District - Durg (C.G.)

¶9

1.b : Shashi Sahu D/o Late Keshavram Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Ward No.-24, Janjgiri, Bazar Chowk, P.S. - Kumhari, District - Durg (C.G.)

¶10

1.c: Tarashankar Sahu S/o Late Keshavram Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o Ward No.-24, Janjgiri, Bazar Chowk, P.S. - Kumhari, District - Durg (C.G.)

¶11

1.d: Purnima Sahu W/o Late Keshavram Sahu Aged About 67 Years R/o Ward No.-24, Janjgiri, Bazar Chowk, P.S. - Kumhari, District - Durg (C.G.)

¶12

... Petitioner(s)

¶13

versus

¶14

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶15

2 - The Collector Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶16

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.07.09 10:32:27 +0530

¶17

2 / 5

¶18

3 - The Nazul Officer Durg Office Of Collector District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶19

4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶20

5 - The Naib Tahsildar Ahiwara, Tahsil Dhamdha District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶21

6 - The Chief Municipal Officer Municipalities Kumhari District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶22

... Respondent(s)

¶23

For Petitioners : Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For Resp. No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate
For Resp. No.6 : Mr. AbhishekSingh,Advocate

¶24

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶25

Order on Board

¶26

07/07/2026

¶27

Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶28

“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record pertaining to the case of petitioner.

¶29

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 and 4 to proceed the petitioner's case for renewal of nazul patta in accordance with law and scheme/notification of the state government.

¶30

10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 6 to do not interfere the possession of the petitioner situated at village - Janjgiri R.N.M. Ahiwara Tahsil -Dhamdha District Durg bearing khasra no. 422, P.H. No. 44/49, area about 0.243 hectare, which is only house of his livelihood in which he is residing in his family till the

¶31

3 / 5

¶32

final decision of the proceeding of renewal of nazul patta.

¶33

10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate.

¶34

10.5 Cost of the petition may also be given.”

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a land-less person was in occupation of govt. land situated at Village- Janjgiri, RNM- Ahiwara, Tahsil-Dhamdha, District- Durg bearing kh. No.422, PH. No.44/49 area about 0.25 acres. Petitioner was granted lease of the subject land by the Collector (competent authority) mentioning of “running coal depot”. Lease was granted for a period from 01.04.1988 to 31.03.1991. Petitioner since then is in possession of said land. Before expiry of period of lease granted to petitioner, petitioner has again submitted application for renewal of lease before the concerned authority and based on the application, report was called from Nazul Officer Durg. Report as asked for was submitted by Nazul Officer, Durg on 07.02.1992 recommending renewal of lease for a further period of 3 years. He contended that thereafter respondent authority kept sitting over the application for renewal of lease submitted by petitioner and no decision has been taken till date. He contended that petitioner was forced to file this writ petition because Municipal Council Kumhari District -Durg has issued notice on 29.10.2020 vide Annexure P-14 asking the petitioner to remove his construction and possession from the land bearing part of kh.

¶36

4 / 5

¶37

no.422 on which petitioner is in possession pursuant to lease deed executed in his favour by the competent authority i.e. Collector.

¶38

Learned counsel for respondent No.6 /Municipal Council submits that though reply has not been filed in this writ petition, however, according to document forwarded to him it is appearing that Collector Durg has considered the application for grant of lease submitted by petitioner and vide order dated 03.03.2021, application submitted by petitioner for renewal of lease has been rejected.

¶39

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not having any knowledge about the decision if any taken by the Collector on his application for renewal of lease of the land subject matter of writ petition. Petitioner has filed this writ petition on 18.03.2021 and today, for the first time, learned counsel for respondent No.6 has made submission based on the document which is placed before the Court and shown to him.

¶40

Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that petitioner was initially granted lease of the land subject matter of writ petition which was recommended for extension. However, on the application submitted by petitioner in the year 1990 no final decision could be taken. Application for renewal of lease remained pending consideration before the competent authority i.e. Collector Durg. According to submission made by learned counsel respondent No.6 based on the document which is placed before this Court for perusal, it appears that the decision on the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of lease of the land situated in kh. No.422 admeasuring 0.242 hectare has been taken and

¶41

5 / 5

¶42

the same has been rejected vide order dated 03.03.2021

¶43

In the aforementioned facts of case, when learned counsel for the petitioner made submission before this Court that the rejection order was not within knowledge of petitioner and further considering that in the order passed by the competent authority rejecting application for renewal of lease may be appealable/revisable by the appropriate authority in accordance with law and therefore I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at this stage permitting the petitioner to take recourse to law to challenge the decision dated 03.03.2021 of the Collector Durg on the application for renewal submitted by petitioner, in accordance with law.

¶44

As according to submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that today for the first time, he came to know about the decision taken on the application submitted by petitioner for renewal of lease, petitioner is in possession of the land prior to 1990, three months’ time is granted to petitioner to take recourse to law against the decision of the Collector dated 03.03.2021.

¶45

For a period of three months no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondents herein against the petitioner.

¶46

With the aforesaid observation and direction, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶47

Sd/Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶48

Praveen

Keshavram Sahu S/O Late Shri Jagatram Sahu (Died) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshavram Sahu S/O Late Shri Jagatram Sahu (Died) 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Khaliq Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kalavati Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manendra Kumar Gangber Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Smt. Rajkumari Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sumant Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramkumar Patel Vs Union of India