1 2025:CGHC:4123 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1372 of 2019  Muralidhar Chouhan S/o Shri Ramlal Chouhan Aged About 46 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village And Post Janakpur, P.S. And Tahsil Baramkela, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3. Deputy Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4. Tahsildar Baramkela, Tahsil Baramkela, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5. Manbodhi S/o Gopinath, By Caste Gada, Occupation Village Kotwar Of Village Kharwani, Tahsil Baramkela, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6. Smt. Leena Patel W/o Shri Parasram Patel, R/o Baramkela, Tahsil Baramkela, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 7. Smt. Prema Devi W/o Shri Pyarelal Agrawal R/o Baramkela, Tahsil Baramkela, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 8. Smt. Indu Devi W/o Shri Ramesh Agrawal, R/o Baramkela, Tahsil Baramkela, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For State/Respondents No. : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General 1 to 4 For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate For Respondents No. 6 to 8 : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22. 01.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a appropriate writ commanding and directing the respondent- authority to record the said land as Govt. service land in revenue records. 10.2 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be please to issue an appropriate writ commanding and directing the respondent No. 1 to 4 to take appropriate action against the respondent No. 5 to 8 for selling and purchasing the Kotwarti service land. 10.3 That the revenue authority may kindly be directed to initiate the proceedings for taking back the possession of Kotwari land from the respondent No. 6 to 8. 10.4 Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 5 is the Kotwar of Village Kharwani, Tahsil Baramkela, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh and he was granted service lands bearing survey Nos. 210, 219, 254, 274, 286, 356, 405, 574, 706, 740-741, and 243, 244, 252, 390 and 396, total admeasuring 4.899 hectares. He would further submit that respondent No. 5 moved an application before the Additional Collector, Raigarh for the grant of permission to sell the part of the above-stated lands. On such an application, permission was granted by the State authority on 11.01.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner sold survey Nos. 210, 356 and 405 total admeasuring 0.404 hectare to three different persons through a registered sale-deed dated 04.02.2007. He would also submit that vide circulars dated 21.12.2011 and 12.06.2024, the District Collectors have been directed to 3 enter the name of the State against the service land allotted to Kotwars, if the service land has been sold, to file a Civil Suit for cancellation of sale- deeds and to take possession, if the Kotwars are not found in possession of the service land. It is contended that as the petitioner has alienated the property contrary to the circulars issued by the State Government; the respondent authorities may be directed to take action strictly in accordance with the circulars dated 21.12.2011 and 12.06.2024. 3. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that permission was granted by the Additional Collector to alienate the property in favour of respondent No. 5 vide order dated 11.01.2007. They would further submit that the sale-deeds were executed by respondent No. 5 in favour of respondents No. 6 to 8 on 04.02.2007. It is contended that the petitioner has no locus to seek such a direction as only the State is authorized to take action against the Kotwar for reversal of the service land. It is further contended that the petitioner has not challenged the permission granted by the Additional Collector dated 11.01.2007 in the present petition. It is stated that the petitioner should approach the higher revenue authorities for cancellation of permission granted by the Additional Collector, Raigarh dated 11.01.2007. It is further stated that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. In the instant petition, the name of respondent No. 5, who was the Kotwar at the relevant time, was recorded as a Bhumiswami against the survey numbers stated in the opening para. Respondent No. 5 filed an application seeking therein permission to alienate the property to respondents No. 6 to 8, and such permission was granted vide order dated 11.01.2007 by the 4 Additional Collector, Raigarh. Certain circulars were issued by the State Government from time to time, wherein it was held that the Kotwari land could not be alienated and transferred. 6. In the present case, respondent No. 5 alienated the property prior to the issuance of the circulars dated 21.12.2011 and 12.06.2024 and the order, whereby permission was granted in favour of respondent No. 5, has not been challenged by the petitioner; therefore, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed. 7. However, the petitioner as well as the State would be at liberty to assail the permission granted by the Additional Collector dated 11.01.2007 in light of the circulars dated 21.12.2011 and 12.06.2024 and would also be at liberty to challenge the sale-deeds according to clause 3 of the circular dated 12.06.2024. S Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant