Tapan Biswas v. State of C.G.

Chhattisgarh HC5 Apr 2026WPC/187/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPC 187 of 2021; Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; Amitendra Kishore Prasad J.; proposed auction of Khasra No. 290/1 Beladula Raigarh 744 sq ft; bhumiswami status application 12.10.2020; 1982 rehabilitation allotment Khasra No. 290/2; refugee rehabilitation; Najul Officer auction; no notice of auction; newspaper publication 11.01.2021; patta/lease contention; fresh representation to Collector; reasoned order within 60 days; writ petition disposed, not decided on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to submit a fresh application/representation before the concerned Collector; the Collector directed to consider and decide the matter by an appropriate and reasoned order, taking into account both the earlier representation dated 12.10.2020 and the fresh representation, within 60 days from receipt of a copy of the order.

Tapan Biswas Vs State of C.G. — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the proposed auction of the land admeasuring 744 square feet in Khasra No. 290/1, Beladula, Raigarh, affecting the petitioner's long-standing possession, is illegal and liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶¶20

Court's answer

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition was disposed of; the challenge to the proposed auction was not decided on merits and the auction was neither quashed nor upheld.

¶¶34

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed the petitioner to approach the concerned Collector by submitting a fresh application/representation; upon such filing, the Collector shall consider and decide the matter by passing an appropriate and reasoned order, taking into account both the earlier representation dated 12.10.2020 and the fresh representation, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The merits of the auction and of the bhumiswami claim were not adjudicated.

¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), WPC No. 187 of 2021, decided 06/04/2026 by Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. The petitioner, whose grandmother was rehabilitated by the State in 1982 with an allotment of 1000 sq ft in Khasra No. 290/2, Beladula, Raigarh, challenged a proposed auction of 744 sq ft in adjoining Khasra No. 290/1, of which he learnt through a newspaper publication dated 11.01.2021 without any notice; his application dated 12.10.2020 for bhumiswami rights over 1500 sq ft was pending. The State contended that no patta or lease had been granted and no bhumiswami right arose. The Court did not decide the legality of the auction or the bhumiswami claim on merits; it disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Collector, who must pass a reasoned order considering both the 12.10.2020 representation and the fresh representation within 60 days of receipt of the order's copy.

¶1

¶2

2026:CGHC:15592

¶3

RAGHVENDRAJAT Digitallysigned byRAGHVENDRAJAT

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 187 of 2021

¶7

1 - Tapan Biswas S/o Haripad Biswas Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. 01, Subhash Nagar, Boirdadar, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of C.G. Through Secretary Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - The Collector, Raigarh District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - The Najul Officer Raigarh District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer.

¶15

¶16

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

06/04/2026

¶19

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶20

“10.1 To kindly call for entire records of the case. 10.2 To kindly quash the auction in respect of khasra number 290/1 beladula of the piece of land admeasuring 744 square feet.

¶21

10.3 To kindly order that the collector may decide the application of the Petitioner for grant of bhumiswami status as per the notification of the State Government.

¶22

10.4 Any other relief which this court deems fit in the interest of justice.”

¶23

Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner’s grandmother, Late Smt. Mukul Rani Vishwas, wife of Harendra Nath Vishwas, had migrated to Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (then part of Madhya Pradesh) and was duly rehabilitated by the State in the year 1982 under the prevailing rehabilitation policy, whereby she was allotted a parcel of land admeasuring 1000 square feet situated in Khasra No. 290/2, Beladula, Raigarh. It is submitted that the petitioner, along with several other similarly situated refugees, was rehabilitated on the said land and was provided with gumtis and residential structures, from which they have been earning their livelihood since allotment. The relevant order of rehabilitation along with the

¶24

¶25

maintenance khasra pertaining to Khasra No. 290/2, evidencing the allotment in favour of the petitioner’s grandmother. It is further submitted that over a period of time, the petitioner raised additional construction admeasuring approximately 500 square feet, a portion of which allegedly extended into adjoining Khasra No. 290/1. Subsequently, in light of Notifications dated 11 September 2019 and 26 October 2019, the petitioner preferred an application dated 12.10.2020 seeking conferment of bhumiswami rights over a total area of 1500 square feet in Khasra No. 290/2, Beladula, Raigarh, upon payment of the requisite premium, however, it is humbly submitted that due to inadvertence, the petitioner did not distinctly disclose that 500 square feet of the said construction fell in Khasra No. 290/1 and instead mentioned the aggregate area of 1500 square feet under Khasra No. 290/2. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s father, and thereafter the petitioner himself, have remained in continuous, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession of the said property since its original allotment. However, the petitioner was shocked to learn through a newspaper publication dated 11^th January, 2021 that land admeasuring 744 square feet in Khasra No. 290/1 was proposed to be auctioned by the respondents. The petitioner submits that no notice of the proposed auction was ever served upon him, and upon making inquiries at the Najul Office, he came to know that his occupied land was, in fact, being affected by the said auction proceedings, thereby seriously prejudicing his rights and interests.

¶26

¶27

Hence, this petition.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposed auction of the plot bearing Khasra No. 290/1 situated at Beladula, Raigarh, admeasuring 744 square feet, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in continuous, peaceful possession of the said property for more than 38 years and has been residing therein and earning his livelihood from the same, therefore, any attempt to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law and without affording an opportunity of hearing, by way of auction, is per se arbitrary and violative of settled legal principles. It is also submitted that the petitioner had already preferred an application dated 12.10.2020 before the competent authority seeking conferment of bhumiswami rights in terms of the relevant State Government notification, which remains pending and has not been adjudicated, however, despite the pendency of the said application and without considering the petitioner’s legitimate claim and preferential right to purchase, the respondents are proceeding with the auction of the property in question. In these circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned auction proceedings in respect of the aforesaid land and further direct the Collector to expeditiously consider and decide the petitioner’s application for grant of bhumiswami status in accordance with law.

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the

¶30

¶31

question of grant of Bhumiswami rights does not arise in the present case, inasmuch as the petitioner has never been granted any patta or lease in respect of the land in question, and therefore, cannot claim any such right under the applicable provisions of law.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶33

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner may approach before the concerned Collector by submitting a fresh application/representation. It is further directed that, upon such filing, the concerned Collector shall consider and decide the matter by passing an appropriate and reasoned order, taking into account both the earlier representation dated 12.10.2020 and the fresh representation submitted by the petitioner, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶37

Raghu Jat

Tapan Biswas v. State of C.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapan Biswas v. State of C.G.

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

Rampukar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dashrath Prasad Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Brijesh Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Rajkumari Baiga Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tapan Vishwas Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chetan Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh