Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18529 (CHH)

DUKHIRAM BAIGA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/1673/2020 · 2025-03-28

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:15109 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1673 of 2020 1 - Dukhiram Baiga S/oo Faklu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Ghoghra, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 2 - Sukhram S/o Faklu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Ghoghra, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 3 - Sukhlal S/o Faklu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Ghoghra, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4 - Faklu S/o Baisakhu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Ghoghra, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5 - Amarlal S/o Suklal Baiga Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Ghoghra, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 6 - Sundar Baiga S/o Rolhu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Ghoghra, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 7 - Jhunuram Baiga S/o Dasru Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Ghoghra, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 8 - Chaitram Baiga S/o Hatthu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Badna, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 9 - Jagatram Baiga S/o Hattu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Badna, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 10 - Daddu Singh S/o Chhatru Baiga Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Badna, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 11 - Anatram S/o Hattu Baiga Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Badna, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.04.01 14:23:03 +0530 2 (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 12 - Musku Baiga S/o Sukla Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Badna, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 13 - Sukla Baiga S/o Gitkar Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Badna, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 14 - Bidhayak Baiga S/o Sukla Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Badna, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 15 - Mana Baiga S/o Sundar Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Badna, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 16 - Sundar Baiga S/o Hira Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Badna, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 17 - Jhulan Singh Baiga S/o Sukla Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Badna, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 18 - Nachkar S/o Sukla Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Badna, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 19 - Dogar Singh S/o Kisan Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Badna, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 20 - Prem Singh Baiga S/o Kisan Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Badna, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 21 - Hira Baiga S/o Itwari Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Badna, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 22 - Itwari S/o Jethu Baiga Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Badna, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 23 - Sakhru Baiga S/o Budh Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Badna, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 24 - Mahar Singh S/o Budh Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Badna, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 3 25 - Budh Singh S/o Aghnu Baiga Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Badna, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 26 - Goutar Singh S/o Lamtu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Badna, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 27 - Patiram S/o Dhansay Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Badna, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 28 - Amar Singh S/o Samelal Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Ghoghra, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 29 - Nan Singh S/o Ramlal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Ghoghra, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 30 - Nanhu Singh S/o Ramlal Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Ghoghra, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 31 - Lal Singh S/o Ramlal Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Ghoghra, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 32 - Firtu S/o Tannu Baiga Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Ghoghra, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 33 - Raitu Baiga S/o Tannu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Ghoghra, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 34 - Kuwariya S/o Sighan Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Ghoghra, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4 4 - Tahsildar Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate along with Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 28-03-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 30.12.2019 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2. 10.2 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide possession of the land to the petitioners in pursuance to the lease granted in favour of the petitioners for the Village Badna vide order dated 05.08.2016. 10.3 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities in alternate to settle the petitioners at some alternate place other then Village Badna. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition. 2) Facts of this batch of cases are that WPC No. 2299 of 2019 was filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to grant them a lease of certain land for agricultural purposes for a period from 2015-16 till 2025-26. The lease was granted at Village Ghoghra/Badna but possession could not be handed over as the leased land was in possession of 35 families and there was resistance 5 from local villagers. The petition was disposed vide order dated 24.07.2019 whereby the petitioners were permitted to make a representation before the Collector, Kabirdham. The Collector, Kabirdham vide order dated 30.12.2019 rejected the representation on the ground that the lease was granted in favor of the 19 families whereas 35 families are in possession of the leased land, therefore, it would be difficult to hand over the possession of the subject land. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the lease was granted in favor of the petitioners by the competent authority and in WPC No. 2299 of 2019, a direction was issued to the Collector, Kabirdham to decide the representation of the petitioners in an objective manner. He contends that the Collector, Kabirdham ought to have ordered the eviction of 35 families who are residing on the subject land as the lease was granted in favor of the petitioners. He prays that the order passed by the Collector, Kabirdham dated 30.12.2019 is liable to be quashed and an appropriate direction may be issued to the said authority to hand over the possession of the subject land to the petitioners. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the lease was granted for a period of 10 years from 2015-16 to 2025-26 and that period is about to expire in 2026. He contends that at present, 35 families are cultivating the subject land and an inspection was also conducted by the respondent authorities pursuant to the order passed in WPC No. 2299 of 2019 and it was found that the petitioners never got possession of the subject land, therefore, the representation was rejected by the Collector, Kabirdham. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on the record. 6 6) Admittedly, the leased property is in possession of 35 families and this aspect was not considered by the respondent authorities before granting the lease in favor of the petitioners, therefore, it would not be proper to dispossess those persons, particularly when possession has not been handed over to the petitioners till date. Also, the lease was granted for a period of 10 years which is about to expire in the year 2026, therefore, no direction can be issued in favor of the petitioners. 7) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya