1 2025:CGHC:20957 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2151 of 2022 1 - Mohan Kumar Agrawal S/o Radheshyam Agrawal Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No.04 Sakti,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.), District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Collector District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.), District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer Revenue, Sakti, District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Tahsildar Sakti, District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.), District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 6 - Bhagat Ram Sharma S/o Munshi Ram Sharma R/o Behind Old State Bank Of India, Sakti, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 7 - Jangdish Bansal S/o Ramfal R/o Bansal Apartment, Sakti, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ram Sajivan, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 5 : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.05.12 19:50:43 +0530 2 For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/05/2025 1. Heard Mr. Ram Sajivan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Santosh Bharat, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.1 to 5 as well as Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. 2. By this instant petition, the petitioner prays for following relief/s : 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned memo dated 11.03.2022 (Annexure P-5) & 24.03.2022 (Annexure P-6) and all the consequential proceeding arising out of memo dated 11-03- 2022 and 24-03-2022 (Annexure P-5 & P-6) initiated by the respondent No.2 to 5 (revenue authorities) regarding the land bearing Khasra No.348/9 (घ) situated at Village Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction as to call the entire record pertaining to the case of petitioner and all the revenue records of the land bearing Khasra No.348/9 (घ) situated at Village Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 10.3 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of land bearing Khasra No.348/9 (घ) area 0.12 acre 3 situated at village Sakti, Patwari Circle No.11, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) and the said land was purchased by the present petitioner in the year-2015 vide registered sale deed from Jangdish Bansal (respondent No.7) and thereafter in the said land, the petitioner mutated his name in the revenue records, and the petitioner diverted the said land for construction in the year- 2015 and also moved an application for permission of construction of residential house before the Municipal Corporation Sakti in the year 2019 and Municipal Corporation granted permission for construction of house over the said land in the year 2019 itself and constructed a residential house over the land bearing Khasra No.348/9 (घ) area 0.12 acre. On 17-09-2021, a complaint was made by the respondent No.6 before the respondent No.4 alleging that the respondent No.7 from whom the petitioner purchased the said land i.e. Khasra No.348/9 (घ) have illegally mutated his name over the revenue records in mutation No.110 in the year-2005 and also alleged that vide unregistered sale deed the said land was purchased by the respondent No.7, thereafter the respondent No.2 & 3 sent a memo to the respondent No.4 dated 11-03-2022 regarding the compliant made by the respondent No.6 and issued direction to declare the mutation order, which is in the favour of respondent No.7 i.e. Mutation No.110 vide order dated 27-07- 2005 null and void and also directed to correct the mutation number 110 and restore the mutation record as earlier, thereafter the respondent No.4 issued a memo to the respondent No.5 in 4 compliance of memo dated 11-03-2022 made by the respondent No.2 & 3 on 24-03-2022 directed the respondent No.5 to comply the order passed by the respondent No.2 & 3, thereafter the respondent No.5 has sent a memo to the concerned Halka Patwari on 08-04-2022 and 18-04-2022 with direction to restore the mutation No.110 dated 27-07-2005 as it was earlier. And after issuance of memo to the concerned Halka Patwari of Patwari Circle Sakti, the petitioner came to know about all the proceedings made by the respondent revenue authorities are done without given any notice to the petitioner nor giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, issued the memo dated 11-03-2022 (Annexure P- 5) & 24-03-2022 (Annexure P-6) without looking to the fact that the petitioner recorded his name in revenue records, which is against the natural justice as the petitioner is not given opportunity of hearing, which is liable to be quashed, hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that subject to due verification and scrutiny of the claim of the petitioner, appropriate steps shall be taken at the earliest within a period of 60 days. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts that the petitioner has purchased the property-the land in question from one Jangdish Bansal/respondent No.7 and after purchasing the said land he is 5 in continues possession of the said land and his name has also been mutated, however, subsequently, without hearing the petitioner, on an application filed by Bhagat Ram Sharma/respondent No.6, orders have been passed by the concerned respondent authorities, the memo date 11.03.2022 and 24.03.2022 are hereby quashed and the concerned Tehsildar, is directed to hear the petitioner by affording proper opportunity of hearing and to pass appropriate order in this case, looking to the fact that a registered sale deed has been executed between the parties as the Bhagat Ram Sharma/respondent No.6 is having no locus standi. within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi