1 / 17 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1742 of 2025 Order Reserved on 04.04.2025 Order Delivered on 25.06.2025 Derhinbai Ganda D/o Jagatram Ganda Aged About 71 Years Caste Ganda (Sc), R/o Village Panchayat Raitum, Patwari Halka No. 10, Ra.Ni.M. Patewa, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) Pin 943551 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department, State of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Pin 492002 2 - Collector Mahasamund In The Office of The Collectorate Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) Pin 493445 3 - Tahsildar Mahasamund In The Office of The Tahsildar Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) Pin 493445 4 - Nayab Tahsildar Up-Tahsil Patewa Mahasamund, In The Office of The Nayab Tahsildar Up-Tahsil Patewa Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) Pin 493445 5 - Chief Secretary General Administrative Department, State of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Pin 492002 ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate For State : Mr. R. K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.06.26 11:05:44 +0530 2 / 17 Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge C A V Order 1. Heard Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks to challenge the entries made in the revenue records for the land bearing Khasra No. 423, 440, 703, 1571 and 1591, total area 1.85 hectares, situated at village Raitum, Patwari Halka No.10, Revenue Circle Patewa, Tahsil and District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, by which the revenue authorities have entered these lands in B-1 and Khasra Panchashla as service land / village servant, which is non-transferable. The petitioner disputed these entries stating that these entries have been entered in an illegal and arbitrary manner. The petitioner is legal heir of Late Jagatram Ganda (Ex-Kotwar). The petitioner’s fore-fathers were given these lands being Kotwar of the village and since 1929-1930, they are in possession of the aforesaid lands. The aforesaid lands were mentioned as “Maphi land”, which cannot be termed as “Seva land” and it is also not a Government land. In the Jamabandi of year 1929-1930, in the remarks column, it has been specifically stated that it is a land given to Kotwar which is a Maphi land. Now, on the basis of illegal entries made by the Revenue Department, the State Government is considering the said lands as Seva land / village servant, which is non-transferable and on the basis of which, respondent 3 / 17 authorities are trying to remove the possession of the petitioner. Earlier also, a writ petition being WPC No.3764/2023 was filed, in which the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had allowed the writ petition vide order dated 10.06.2024 while giving specific direction to the respondent authorities for correcting the entries in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to decide the application afresh. 3. The fore-fathers as well as father of the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner is absolute owner of the land in question right from 1929-1930. It is a Maphi land, in which name of fore-fathers of the petitioner were recorded, as such, the entries made in the remarks column is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be rectified. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court pleased to call for all the records of the case for its perusal and examination. 10.2 That this Hon'ble court be pleased to issue a writ/writs for quashing the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondent which is done without any prescribe procedure by the Civil Suit as per the Circular issued by the respondent State. 10.3 That this Hon'ble court be pleased to issue a writ/writs for quashing the arbitrary 4 / 17 and illegal action whereby petitioner and her forefathers are the absolute owner since before the year 1929/30 and after the year 1929/30 as per the revenue record. 10.4 That this Hon'ble court be pleased to issue a writ/writs for quashing the arbitrary and illegal action when the Revenue Department themselves already done NAMANTARAN as per the Annexure P/15 on dated 10/06/2003 & 15/07/2010. 10.5 That the Hon'ble court be further pleased to issue a writ/writs against the respondent. R/1 Secretary Revenue, R/2 the Collector Mahasamund and R/3 Tahsildar Mahasaund and R/4 Up-Tahsildar Patewa to proceed and complied the circulars Annexure P/17 issued by the respondent State of C.G., in view of the revenue documents Annexure P/18 of the petitioners. 10.6 That the Hon'ble court be pleased to issue a writ/writs against the respondent R/1 Secretary Revenue, R/2 the Collector Mahasamund to proceed and complied and direct the respondent R/3 Tahsildar & R/4 Nayab Tahsildar as per the Circulars, orders 5 / 17 and judgment passed by this Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, in view of the revenue documents. 10.7 That the Hon'ble court be pleased to issue a writ/writs against the respondent R/3 Tahsildar and R/4 Nayab Tahsildar Patewa to not disturb the possession on MAFI BHUMI which is already mutated in favour of the petitioner and her forefathers of the petitioner on which they are on possession about more than 100 years. 10.8 That the Hon'ble court be pleased to award cost and expenses of the writ petition. 10.9 That the Hon'ble court be pleased to issue any other writ (s) of order (s) direction (s) in favour of the petitioners herein and against the respondent in the interest of justice, equity, fair play and for preventing miscarriage of justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question has been given to the fore-fathers of the petitioner from erstwhile Maalgujar prior to Independence. The revenue records of the year 1929-1930 goes to show that the lands in question are Maphi land given to the Kotwar of the village without any levy imposed upon the same. Sovind was the fore-father of the 6 / 17 petitioner and thereafter, it was succeeded in the name of Jagatram Ganda i.e. the father of the petitioner. The petitioner is the only issue of Jagatram Ganda, as such, she has succeeded the property in question. He further submits that in lieu of providing Kotwari service, these lands were granted to the fore- father of the petitioner by the Maalgujar. These lands were neither belonging to the State nor belonging to any other person. After grant of these lands, the fore-father as well as father of the petitioner is absolute owner of the property in question and the petitioner who succeeded the same, has also become absolute owner of the property in question. The entries in respect of Maphi land while recording the name of fore-father and father of the petitioner had continued till 2019. After death of Jagatram Ganda, the name of the petitioner was recorded as Successor in the year 2008-2009 and vide order dated 13.08.2010, after death of Jagatram, the name of the petitioner was recorded. Till 2019, the petitioner being recorded the owner of the property, was enjoying title and possession and all the revenue record books show about the same. The petitioner cultivated the said lands till date, however, subsequently, in the entries pertaining to the year 2020- 2021 itself, the name of the petitioner was recorded showing it to be an individual property, however in B-1 and Khasra Panchshala pertaining to the year 2023-2024, without any reason and without issuing any notice or granting any opportunity of hearing, in the remarks column, the lands have been shown to be a service land / village servant, which is non-transferable. It has been 7 / 17 contended that when the petitioner came to know about the same, she made an application before the concerned authorities to correct the remarks column while stating that these lands are individual properties recorded in the name of the petitioner and it is not a service land as stated in revenue remarks. Since the year 1929-1930, these lands were granted to the fore-father to the petitioner as Kotwari land, which is Maphi land (non-taxable land). The entries were corrected without issuance of any notice to the petitioner and it is specific case of the petitioner that how and on what basis, the remark has been entered treating the said lands as service lands. It has been further contended that when earlier writ petition bearing WPC No.3764/2023 was filed, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.08.2023 has stayed the effect and operation of the of the order dated 14.07.2023 and further while finally disposing of the said writ petition vide order dated 10.06.2024, the Court had directed the respondent authorities to consider the application of the petitioner and to pass appropriate order. It has been argued that from the order-sheet, it seems that notices were directed to be issued on the very next date i.e. on 10.07.2023 without confirming the service of the notice and on 14.07.2023, ex-parte order has been passed against the petitioner and accordingly, the order dated 14.07.2023 was set aside by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.06.2024 and the concerned Naib Tahsildar was directed to pass appropriate order after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as also to pass order afresh. 8 / 17 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that since the matter is pending for consideration before concerned Naib Tahsildar, as such without waiting for the order of the Naib Tahsildar, instant petitioner has been filed by the petitioner seems to be premature. The petitioner should have waited for the final order to be passed as per order dated 10.06.2024. Upon outcome of the order, the petitioner should have availed alternative remedy available under the law by way of filing an appropriate appeal and revision. There are several judgments passed by this Court in which it has been specifically mentioned that Kotwari land is a service land and it is non- transferable, as such the petition is bereft of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and considered their rival submission made herein and gone through the record thoroughly and extensively. 7. Upon perusal of the record, it seems that the land in question was held by the fore-fathers of the petitioner way back in the year 1929-1930. It was a Maphi land as recorded in the revenue records pertaining to year 1929-1930 and thereafter, being the Kotwar, it was continued till death of original Kotwar and thereafter, the petitioner succeeded the same. Till 2020-2021, there is no dispute in respect of position of the land, which is recorded in the revenue record. All of a sudden, in the year 2023- 9 / 17 2024, the land in question was recorded as service land stating it to be non-transferable. At no point of time, there was any dispute in respect of position of land to be a Maphi land. There was nothing on record to show that on what basis, the said lands were entered as service lands granted to the village servant (non- transferable). Prior to Independence, the lands were hold by the Jaagirdars and Maalgujars, who were giving lands to the individuals for cultivating the same after obtaining levy (Lagaan). Some lands were also given as Maphi land for providing specific service to the Jamindaars as well as Maalgujars. The lands in question has been granted to the fore-fathers of the petitioner for Kotwari service free from levy and it is called as Maphi land. It continued from 1929-1930 to 2020-2021 in the revenue records, as such the subsequent entries in the remarks stating it to be service land / village servant (non-transferable) recorded in the revenue records seems to be without any justification. 8. The aforesaid aspects have not been considered by the Naib Tahsildar and the Naib Tahsildar without applying his mind has corrected the remarks column without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as such, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the earlier writ petition being WPC No.3764/2023 and set aside the order dated 14.07.2023 as also directed the concerned Naib Tahsildar was directed to pass afresh order after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner. 9. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has dealt with the similar 10 / 17 issue in W.P. No.1230/2004, which was decided on 24.01.2013 observing as follows:- “A perusal of circular dated 04/02/99 (Annexure A/1) shows that the State Government directed all the Collectors to scrutinize lands held by Kotwars. In the said circular, the State Government also mentioned that Kotwars may be holding Maphi and or service land. In respect of service lands, no Bhumi Swami rights can be conferred. In the case of Chhabil Das (Supra), an order was passed by this Court on 30/10/01 directing the competent authority to grant Bhumi Swami rights. A direction was issued on the statement made before the Court that the land held is a Maphl land and not service land and the predecessors were holding the land prior to 1950. The petitioners have, placed on record number of documents wherein some of the documents do Indicate the land as Maphl land. This aspect however, requires a proper and detailed enquiry as to whether the land held by late Kotwar Bhalidhardas, of which 11 / 17 the petitioners are successors, was held by his predecessors, even since 1921, as Maphi land or service land. This is so because petitioners' entitlement to claim Bhumi Swami Rights depends upon the fact as to whether the land is held by the petitioners or their predecessors as Maphi land or service land. Respondents, in their return have not come out with any specific material to give, specific details of the nature of land held by predecessors of the petitioners for the last about 85 years. Therefore, the matter Involves disputed question of fact and requires detailed fact finding enquiry, which can be done by the competent authority under the provisions of Chhattigarh Land Revenue Code in the matter of grant of Bhumi Swami Rights. In the result, this petition is disposed off with a direction to respondent No.2 to hold proper enquiry after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to find out as to whether the land was Maphi land or service land. Depending upon the nature of land, petitioner's claim for conferral of Bhumi 12 / 17 Swami rights shall be considered in accordance with the provisions contained in Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.” 10. Further, the similar issue has also been decided by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in WPC No.2299/2016 vide order dated 28.02.2024, in which the Court has held as follows:- “10. From perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petition, from the order dated 24.01.2013 passed in WP No. 1230 of 2004, the respondent No. 2 was directed to hold proper inquiry after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to find out, as to whether the land was Maphi land or Service land. In the matter, instead of inquiry conducted by the respondent No. 2/Collector Raigarh, he referred the matter to the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), who in turn called the report from the Tahsildar and after obtaining report from the Tahsildar, passed the order and rejected the representation of the petitioner, which cannot be the compliance of the order dated 24.01.2013 in its true letter and spirit. Further, from the Misal Jamabandi of the year 1924-25 (Annexure P-3), it appears that the subject 13 / 17 land was recorded in the name of Lal Bhawani Singh as the owner of the land and the name of the farmer was shown in the column No. 6 as Ramnath Panka, who is the forefather of the present petitioner. From the Kishtbandi Khatauni of the year 1974-75 (Annexure P-4), the name of Bhalidhar Das was recorded in the Revenue Record. Further, in the Record of Rights of the year 1954-55, the name of Bhalidhar Das is shown in the Bhumiswami column. The status of Bhalidhar Das has also been shown as village servant (Kotwar). The Khasra Panchshala of the year 1949-50 to 1952-53 (Annexure P-6) bears with the name of owner of land as Lal Bhawani Singh, whereas the name of Gadhawal Ramnath Panika, forefather of the petitioner is shown in column No. 6, which is the Farmers column, who was cultivating the land. In the Misal of 1920-21 (Annexure P-7), the name of Ramnath Panika was recorded in the Farmers column of the subject land, and the status of the land was recorded as Maphi Sarkari Chowkidari, and the owner's name is recorded as Lal Bhawani Singh. Further, in the Jamabandi of the year 14 / 17 1920-21 (Annexure P-8) in column No. 4, there is an entry of “Maphi” and the name of farmer is recorded in the column No. 2 as Ramnath and the owner's name is recorded as Lal Bhawani Singh. 11. The respondents/State has submitted the document of Misal of the year 1924-25 along with their submissions on 25.08.2023, which has been filed on 03.10.2023 and the said Misal of the year 1924-25 reflects the status of the Ramnath with respect to subject land is Maphidaran and the owner of the land was recorded as Lal Bhawani Singh. In the said Misal of 1924-25, the name and status of the farmer is also recorded as Ramnath S/o Gadharam, Caste Panika Sa.Deh Maphi, Sarkari Chowkidari. 12. From the perusal of the report dated 19.08.2016 submitted by the Tahsildar Raigarh, before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raigarh, it appears that the Tahsildar has also considered in its report that from the record of the year 1921, it appears that the grandfather of the petitioner had obtained the land as Maphi land in lieu of 15 / 17 Sarkari Chowkidari and since the Kotwar of the village Basantpur was changed, and therefore they have considered that the petitioner is not entitled for Bhumiswami rights over the subject land, whereas it reflects from the report that there is no proper consideration of the revenue documents available on record by the Tahsildar, which affects the rights of the petitioner substantially. Further, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raigarh has mechanically passed the order on 24.08.2016 and the same is very cryptic order. 13. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also from perusal of the record of the writ petition, I am of the opinion that the matter requires re- consideration/re-investigation with respect to the nature of land, whether the same is Maphi land or Service land. The matter needs inquire by the respondent No. 2/Collector Raigarh, as ordered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, dated 24.01.2013, passed in WP No. 1230 of 2004, and not by any subordinate Revenue Officer. 16 / 17 14. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 2/Collector, Raigarh with a direction to hold proper inquiry after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to find out as to whether the land was Maphi land or Service land, without giving effect to the order dated 24.08.2016, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raigarh and without being influenced by the report dated 19.08.2016, submitted by Nayab Tahsildar, Raigarh in the case and to hold an independent inquiry on its own merit. It is further directed that, depending upon the nature of land, the claim of the petitioner for grant of Bhumiswami rights shall be considered in accordance with the provisions contained in Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959.” 11. From the documents, it seems that till date, no orders have been passed by the Naib Tahsildar, as such, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner should have approached the concerned Naib Tahsildar and in turn, the Naib Tahsildar concerned is directed to pass appropriate orders keeping in mind the earlier order dated 10.06.2024 passed in WPC No.3764/2023 filed by the petitioner. 17 / 17 12. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations/directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh