1 2025:CGHC:16427 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1784 of 2025 1 - Latel Ram S/o Shri Dayaram Aged About 54 Years R/o Village - Paraswara, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Civil And Revenue District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 2 - Suman Kumar S/o Shri Deviram Aged About 41 Years R/o Village - Paraswara, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ray Singh S/o Shri Anandram Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Paraswara, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Parmeshwar S/o Shri Shivrati Aged About 34 Years R/o Village - Paraswara, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Dhanjay D/o Shri Tulsiram Aged About 43 Years R/o Village - Paraswara, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Narottam S/o Shri Bhagwani Aged About 74 Years R/o Village - Paraswara, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Raju S/o Shri Pardeshi Baiga Aged About 41 Years R/o Village - Paraswara, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 8 - Sarju S/o Shri Pardeshi Baiga Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Paraswara, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 9 - Nandkishore S/o Shri Gaurishankar Aged About 65 Years R/o Village - Paraswara, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 10 - Geeta Bai W/o Shri Baldau Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Paraswara, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Tahsildar Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Divisional Forest Officer Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Deputy Divisional Forest Officer Sub Division Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 7 - The Assistant Commissioner Cum Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Mungeli District Mungeli. 8 - The Co-Operative Extension Officer Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) 3 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/04/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records in connection of the petitioner's cases. 10.2 That Hon'ble Court be further pleased to direct the Respondent authority to grant lease of land bearing Khasra No.15/1, Rakba 2.50 acres each of the petitioner and other Khasra No. 8/1 situated in the village Paraswara for agriculture purpose to the petitioners as per law within stipulated period. 10.3 That Hon'ble Court be further pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider and decide the application dated (Ann.P/6) submitted by the petitioners for grant of lease of the land mentioned in Ann.P/2 as per law within stipulated period. 10.4 Any other order that the Hon'ble Court deems fit 4 and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed. 10.5 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioners.” 2. The petitioners have jointly moved an application for grant of patta bearing Khasra No. 15/1 and according to the petitioners the similarly situated persons have already been granted patta vide Annexure P/4 by the respondent authorities as such the petitioners are also entitled and they are seeking indulgence of this Court while directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of all the petitioners and to pass appropriate orders in respect of grant of patta. He further submits that the application was filed by the petitioners way back on 17.03.2025 on the basis of recommendation made by the Co-operative Extension Officer, Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh on 27.12.2024 as such the petitioners are seeking a direction that the concerned authorities may be directed to verify the entitlement of the petitioners and to pass appropriate orders in respect of grant of patta. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that recommendation was made on 27.12.2024, however, Co- operative Extension Officer, Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh is having no authority to recommend the same. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Lormi, District-Mungeli has passed 5 report dated 06.01.2025 by which the petitioners were directed to file individual application for grant of Van Adhikar Patta before the concerned Van Adhikar Samiti and the same shall be decided in accordance with law. 4. The petitioners have filed an application before the Collector instead of filing application before the concerned Van Adhikar Samiti of the village. The petitioners have filed an application before the Collector on 17.03.2025 as such the petitioners are required to file an individual application for grant of patta before the concerned Van Adhikar Samiti of the said village. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materiel available on record. 6. It is true a recommendation has been made by the Co-operative Extension Officer, Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, however, according to the rules of granting patta, the specified officer would be the Tahsildar, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) as well as the Collector for grant of any patta. 7. In the present case, the power is vested with the Van Adhikar Samiti of the concerned village under the rules of the State Government as such the petitioners are required to file individual application before the concerned Van Adhikar Samiti of the said village which the petitioners have not deed. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, and looking 6 to the interest of justice this petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioners to file individual application in respect of grant of patta before the concerned Van Adhikar Samiti and, in turn, if the said applications are filed, the Van Adhikar Samiti is directed to consider the same and to pass appropriate orders in respect of grant of patta. 9. It is made clear that this Court is not opined anything on merits and the Van Adhikar Samiti as well as the revenue authorities are at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 10. With this observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat