Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2025:CGHC:16443
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3213 of 2022 Jagdish S/o Manglu Aged About 43 Years Caste Kumhar, Occupation - Cultivator, R/o Village Bakirma, P.S. And Tahsil Premnagar, Distt. Surajpur Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, At Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Board Of Revenue Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh , Through The Member 3 - The Commissioner Surguja Division Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 4 - Devnath S/o Somarsai Aged About 53 Years Caste Kumhar, Occupation Cultivator, R/o Village Bakirma, P.S. And Tahsil Premnagar, Distt. Surajpur Chahttisgarh
... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
Order on Board 08.04.2025 1 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent-State and Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.04.09 18:50:59 +0530
2 2 The instant petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution with the following relief(s):-
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari or of like nature to set- aside/quash the order dated 02/06/2022 (Annexure-P/1) & consequently the order dated 11/09/2019 (Annexure-P/7) may also be set aside with further direction to affirm the order dated 09/11/2016 passed by the learned Collector. 10.2 That, a command/direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to produce the entire record pertaining the case of the petitioner for kind perusal of the Court and proper adjudication. 10.3 Any other relief which is deemed fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner along with cost of the petition.” 3
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner had filed an application before the Collector, District Surguja (C.G.) against the respondent Devnath challenging the lease which was obtained by him in an illegal manner by suppressing the facts, thereafter, the enquiry was held by the
3 learned Collector and it was found that the lease has been granted without any eligibility of the private respondent. therefore, the learned Collector quashed the lease/Patta and direction was given by the Collector to record the subject land in the account of the State, against which, an appeal was preferred by the private respondent before the learned Commissioner Surguja Division in which the order of the Collector was turned down and the lease was reinstated in, so the present petitioner challenge the order of Commissioner in appeal before the Board of Revenue. Initially the appeal was entertained and interim relief was granted by the Board and subsequently, the Board heard the matter on maintainability and by passing the impugned order, opined that since the subjected lease has been granted under the provisions of Revenue Book Circular, hence, the Board is not vested with the jurisdiction to hear the matter as per the circular of the State, therefore, alternative remedy may be availed by the aggrieved party. The relevant para of the order dated 02.06.2021 is quoted below :-
“4.
्ቚकरण का अवलोकन किकया गया। ्ቚकरण मूलतः
आवेदक को वादभूकिम का शासकीय पट््ሾा राजस्व पुस्तक
परिरप्ቔ के तहत् जारी प्ሾा को किनरस्त करने के संबंध में है।
राजस्व पुस्तक परिरप्ቔ खण्ड 4
कमांक 3
में कृ कि/ भूकिम से प्ሾा, जारी/
किनरस्त करने की काय0वाही/
आदेश के किवरू्ቍ
राजस्व मण्डल को सुनवाई की ्ቌे्ቔाधिधकारिरता नहीं है। इस
संबंध में पृथक से ्ቚावधान किदए गए है,
जो इस ्ቚकार है:-
4 राजस्वपुस्तकपरिरप्ቔ, खण्डचार-्ቅमांक3 कीकቄኌण्डका 30 (1) इसपरिरप्ቔके अंतग0तके वलएकअपीलकीजा सके गी। आबंटन अधिधकारी जहाँ तहसीलदार/नायब तहसीलदार हो, उनके आदेश के किवरू्ቍ अनुकिवभागीय अधिधकारीकोएवंजहाँआबंटनअधिधकारी-कलेक्टरहो उनके आदेशके किवरू्ቍ[संभागीयककिम्र] कोआदेशकी तारीखके [ 45 किदन] के अंदरअपीलकीजासके गी।] अपीलमेंपारिरतआदेशअंधितमहोगा। अपीलकरनेकाअधिधकार- ्ቚ्ाधीनभूकिमसेलगीहुईभूकिम के काश्तकार संबंधिधत ्ቇाम पंचापयत तथाऐसे व्यकिE जिजसकाभूआबंटनके लिलएआवेदन-प्ቔ, ्ቚ्ाधीनभूकिमका आवंटनहोनेके समयलंकिबतरहाहो, -कोहोगा। [इसके अधितरिरEअपीलीयअधिधकारीकीकिवशे/अनुमधित सेवेव्यकिEभीअपीलकरसकें गे, जोकिकन्हींअपरिरहाय0 कारणवशसमयपरआवेदन-प्ቔनहींदेसके । (2) इसपरिरप्ቔके अंतग0तपारिरतकिकएगएकिकसीभीमूल आबंटन अथवा अपील आदेश - जो जिजलाध्य्ቌ ्ቛारा पारिरतकिकयागयहै-स्वमेवअथवासंबंधिधतव्यकिEआवेदन- प्ቔपरकिनगरानी[संभागीयककिम्र] ्ቛाराकीजासके गी। परंतुयकिदआबंटनआदेशके किवरु्ቍकं धिडका 30-1 के अंतग0तअपीलकीजाकसतीथीपरंतुनहींकीगईतोऐसे
5 आदेशके किवरू्ቍकोईप्ቌकिनगरानीआवेदन-प्ቔ्ቚस्तुत नहींकरसके गा। (3) आयुE्ቛाराअपीलमेंपारिरतकिकएगएआदेशके किवरु्ቍकिनगरानीराज्यशासनकोकीजासके गी।]
उपरोE ्ቚावधान से स्प्ቖ है किक पुनरी्ቌण आदेश के किवरू्ቍ
न तो पुनरी्ቌण का आवेदन ्ቇा्ቨ किकया जा सकता और न
ही स्वमेव पुनरी्ቌण लिलया जा सकता है। राजस्व मण्डल को छ०ग०भू-
राजस्व संकिहता के ्ቚावधानों के तहत् पारिरत
आदेशों के किवरु्ቍ अपील /
पुनरी्ቌण की अधिधकारिरता है
जबकिक ्ቚ्गत आदेश छ०ग०भू-
राजस्व संकिहता के अंतग0त
पारिरत नहीं है अतः ्ቚस्तुत पुनरी्ቌण आवेदन पर सुनवाई
एवं आदेश पारिरत करने की ्ቌे्ቔाधिधकारिरता राजस्व मण्डल
” को नहीं होने से पुनरी्ቌण अस्वीकार किकया जाता है। 4 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, since the matter relates to release of grant or refusal of Patta, the petitioner is directed to approach before the concerned authority within a period of 20 days. Till the final decision and till the hearing of the interim application, the order granting status quo shall remain in force. The State authorities are directed to hear the revision to be preferred by the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of filing of the revision by the petitioner and it is expected from the State authorities to consider and decide the interim application filed by the petitioner within the specific time frame.
6 5 It is made clear that if the petitioner is failed to approach before the authorities within the time granted i.e. 20 days, this order will loose its efficacy. 6 With the aforementioned observation/direction, instant petition is
disposed of.
Sd/- -
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge Yogesh