Sonsai Dadsena Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner calls in question the legality and validity of the order passed by respondent No.2/Collector, Janjgir-Champa in Revenue Case No. 201908060100034/A19(1)/2019-20 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner’s application for allotment of Abadi land (Kh. No. 827/9,

¶20

2

¶21

area 0.05 acre, Village Karnaud) has been rejected, despite noobjection granted by the Gram Panchayat, Tahsildar Bamhanindih and other concerned authorities, on the grounds of lack of provision under the Revenue Book Circular and alleged absence of jurisdiction, while erroneously rejecting the application instead of returning it to the competent authority. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :-

¶22

“10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of 'CERTIORARI' quashing the order with a direction to refer the matter to the competent court or authority according to the provision prescribed under the law.

¶23

10.2 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue any writ or direction or order as deem fit in the interest of justice. ”

¶24

2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner, an Exarmy man retired on 31.03.2019 from the post of Hawaldar, applied for allotment of Abadi land bearing Kh. No. 827/9, area 0.05 acre, situated at Village Karnaud, before the Collector, Janjgir-Champa. Upon such application, the Collector directed the Tahsildar, Bamhanindih to conduct an enquiry. The Tahsildar registered the case, issued public notice, invited objections from the Gram Panchayat and concerned departments, and upon receipt of no objections, submitted a report dated 02.06.2020 recommending allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner.

¶25

3

¶26

Thereafter, the Collector, vide order dated 02.07.2021, rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground of jurisdiction.

¶27

3. Mr. Hariom Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2/Collector is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled procedure of law, inasmuch as the Collector has rejected the petitioner’s application for allotment of Abadi land despite the fact that the entire enquiry was duly conducted by the competent authority i.e. the Tahsildar, who, after following due process and inviting objections, submitted a categorical recommendation in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Collector has erred in law in assuming jurisdiction to finally decide the application, while simultaneously holding that he lacks jurisdiction in the matter. Such a course adopted by the Collector is self-contradictory and unsustainable, as once the authority found itself lacking jurisdiction, it ought to have returned or transmitted the application to the competent authority instead of rejecting the same on merits.

¶28

4. Mr. Rai also submits that under the relevant provisions of Section 244 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, ‘the Code, 1959’), the jurisdiction to consider and grant allotment of Abadi land vests with the Gram Panchayat or the Tahsildar, both of whom have, in the present case, already considered the petitioner’s claim and found it suitable for allotment, there being no objection from any concerned department. It is lastly submitted

¶29

4

¶30

that the rejection of the application by the Collector has the effect of creating an unwarranted legal impediment in the petitioner’s rightful claim, thereby causing serious prejudice, and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner’s application in accordance with law.

¶31

5. On the other hand, Ms. Akanksha Verma, learned Panel Lawyer opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2/Collector is strictly in accordance with law and does not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is submitted that as per the applicable provisions of the Revenue Book Circular (Part IV B-3), there is no specific provision for allotment of Abadi land in favour of an Ex-army personnel by the Collector, and therefore, the application preferred by the petitioner was not maintainable before the said authority. The Collector has rightly considered the issue of jurisdiction and declined to grant the relief.

¶32

6. Ms. Verma further submitted that mere recommendation by the Tahsildar or absence of objection from the Gram Panchayat or other departments does not confer any vested right upon the petitioner for allotment of land, and the competent authority is well within its jurisdiction to examine the legality and maintainability of the application. She, thus submits that no illegality or procedural irregularity has been committed by the Collector in passing the

¶33

5

¶34

impugned order, and the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on their behalf. I have also carefully perused the pleadings, documents annexed thereto, and the record of the case.

¶36

8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the proceedings were initiated on an application preferred by the petitioner, an ex-serviceman, seeking allotment of 0.05 acre of Abadi land out of Khasra No. 827/9 situated at Village Karnaud for construction of a residential house. Pursuant thereto, a case was registered and a report was called for from the Naib Tahsildar, Bamhnidih, who, after conducting due enquiry and considering the proposal of the Gram Panchayat, no-objection certificates issued by various departments and the Patwari report, submitted his report dated 02.06.2020 recommending allotment of the said land in favour of the petitioner.

¶37

9. It further reveals that the Collector, while considering the matter, took note of the provisions contained in the Revenue Book Circular and recorded that there is no specific provision for allotment of Abadi land to ex-servicemen, though a provision exists for allotment of agricultural land. The Collector also observed that under Section 244 of the Code, 1959, the authority

¶38

6

¶39

competent to dispose of Abadi land is the Gram Panchayat, or in its absence, the Tahsildar.

¶40

10. On such consideration, the Collector concluded that he lacks jurisdiction to decide the application for allotment of Abadi land and, instead of transmitting or returning the application to the competent authority, proceeded to reject the same and directed the applicant to approach the appropriate forum, thereby dismissing the application.

¶41

11. The Division Bench of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Jagdish Patidar v. State of M.P. and Others, 2020 SCC OnLine MP 3907 , has considered the similar issue and held as under :-

¶42

“5. There is an allegation against the Gram Panchayat that the layout has been approved for allotment of 'Abadi' land for commercial purposes in violation of Section 244 of the MPLRC. Section 243 of the MPLRC defines 'Abadi' and according to which, where the area reserved for Abadi is in the opinion of the Collector insufficient, he may reserve such further area from the unoccupied land in the village as he may think fit. Section 244 of the MPLRC gives power to the Gram Panchayat to dispose of the sites in the Abadi area, "Abadi land" is defined in Section 2(1), which means the area reserved from time to time in a village in a non-urban area for the residence of the inhabitants thereof or for purposes ancillary thereto. The area falls within the Municipal Corporation and Municipalities is referred as "non-urban area" under Clause (z-4) of Section 2(1) which means, "Abadi sites" which fall

¶43

7

¶44

within the villages are available to the Panchayat for its disposal for residential purposes as well as its ancillary purposes. The State Government framed the rules called "M.P. Panchayat (Regulation of Markets and Melas within the Gram Panchayat Area) Rules, 1994 and under Rule 2, the Gram Panchayat may establish and maintain market or markets at suitable places within the Gram Panchayat area for the convenience of the people of the area. Therefore, as per Rule 2. the Gram Panchayat is empowered to establish a market within the Gram Panchayat area. It is not in dispute that the land in question was reserved for 'Abadi' by the Collector vide order dated 17.7.2015 is within the Gram Panchayat area. After passing the order dated 17.7.2014 and 8.7.2015, the Gram Panchayat passed the resolution for allotment of plots for residential as well as commercial purposes. Prima facie, it is not a case where the Surpanch or the Secretary have alone exceeded their jurisdiction or misused their authority for disposal of Government land in violation of Section 244 of the MPLRC. All these issues require consideration in detail.

¶45

6. Since the petitioner filed the writ petition against the internal communication between the SDO and the CEO dated 19.3.2020 but now the show-cause notice under section 92 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 has been issued on 12.6.2020 to the petitioner which was not the subject matter of the writ petition, therefore, instead of setting aside the impugned order, we hereby grant liberty to the petitioner to challenge the validity of the show cause notice dated 12.6.2020 along with order dated 19.3.2020. The finding and observation recorded by the Writ Court shall not come in the way while deciding the writ petition afresh.”

¶46

8

¶47

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of aforementioned judgment, it is apparent that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2/Collector has been rendered after taking into account the relevant statutory framework governing the field, particularly the provisions relating to disposal and allotment of Abadi land. From a careful scrutiny of the record, it emerges that the Collector has primarily declined to entertain and adjudicate upon the petitioner’s application on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, having regard to the scheme of the Code, 1959, wherein the authority to deal with such matters vests with the Gram Panchayat or the Tahsildar. Thus, the core reasoning assigned in the impugned order pertains to the issue of competence of the authority, and the same cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to law.

¶48

13. It is further evident that although the Collector proceeded to reject the application instead of returning or transmitting the same to the competent authority, such procedural course, by itself, does not render the impugned order illegal or unsustainable so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The fundamental aspect remains that the Collector has rightly refrained from adjudicating upon a matter which, in his considered view, did not fall within his domain of authority.

¶49

14. At the same time, this Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that the petitioner, an ex-serviceman, had approached the authorities

¶50

9

¶51

with a limited prayer for allotment of a small parcel of Abadi land for residential purposes and that the concerned revenue machinery, including the Tahsildar, after conducting due enquiry, issuance of public notice, and obtaining no-objection from all concerned departments as well as the Gram Panchayat, had recommended the case of the petitioner for allotment. This clearly indicates that the petitioner’s claim has not been found untenable on merits; rather, it remains to be adjudicated by the authority competent in law.

¶52

15. In view of the aforesaid, while this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 on the touchstone of legality and jurisdiction, it is deemed appropriate, in the interest of justice, to preserve and protect the substantive rights of the petitioner by granting him liberty to approach the competent authority having jurisdiction under the relevant provisions of law, including Section 244 of the Code, 1959, for redressal of his grievance.

¶53

16. It is, accordingly, observed and directed that in the event the petitioner approaches the competent authority by filing an appropriate application along with all relevant documents, the said authority shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by the rejection order passed by respondent No.2, and after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The authority shall also

¶54

10

¶55

take into consideration the earlier enquiry report, recommendation of the Tahsildar, and the no-objection certificates issued by the concerned departments and the Gram Panchayat, and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with all relevant aspects.

¶56

17. It is further expected that such exercise shall be undertaken and concluded expeditiously, within a reasonable time, so that the petitioner is not subjected to unnecessary delay in securing adjudication of his claim.

¶57

18. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the present writ petition stands disposed of . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶60

Yogesh

¶61

The date when the	The date when the	The date when the judgment is
judgment is	judgment is	uploaded on the website
reserved	pronounced
		Operative Full
17.04.2026	15.06.2026	------ 15.06.2026

Sonsai Dadsena v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonsai Dadsena 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

Smt. Sundari Bai Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Paras Verma Vs Shanti

Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Badhekanera Vs State of Chhattisgarh

X Y Z Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rukmani Chauhan Vs the State of Chhattisgarh