1 2025:CGHC:4955 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3042 of 2019 1. Madhya Pradesh Shashkiye Karamchari Grih Nirmaan Shahkari Samiti Maryadit Bilaspur, A Society Constituted Under The Societeis Registration Act, Acting In The Premise Through Its Vice President Shri Jeevanlal Dewangan,, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Jeevanlal Dewangan S/o Shri Sundermani Meher Aged About 70 Years R/o Mp Shashkiye Grih Niraman Samiti Maryadit, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Ashwini Kumar Mishra S/o Shri Ramadhar Mishra Aged About 54 Years R/o Shashkiye Karamchari Grih Nirman Samiti Maryadit, Uslapur, Tahsil Takhatpur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Smt. Pushpa Verma W/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Aged About 66 Years R/o Shashkiye Karamchari Grih Nirman Samiti Maryadit, Uslapur, Tahsil Takhatpur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5. Smt. Vibha Shukla W/o Shri Lalit Shukla Aged About 55 Years R/o Shashkiye Karamchari Grih Nirman Samiti Maryadit, Uslapur, Tahsil Takhatpur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6. S. R. Chandravanshi S/o Shri Uderam Aged About 50 Years R/o Shashkiye Karamchari Grih Nirman Samiti Maryadit, Uslapur, Tahsil Takhatpur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Revenue Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Addistional Commissioner Bilaspur, Division Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Superintendent Of Police District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5. Police Station Sakri Through Its Sho Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.01.30 10:19:31 +0530 2 6. The Addittional Tahsildar Sakri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7. Govind Singh Markam (Died)through Legal Hrs As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 16-12-2019. 7.1 - Smt. Siddika Markam Wd/o Late Govind Singh Markam Aged About 48 Years Resident Of Old Bazarpara, Near House Of Uttam Manikpuri, Uslapur, Block Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7.2 - Kumari Pooja Markam D/o Late Govind Singh Markam Aged About 22 Years Resident Of Old Bazarpara, Near House Of Uttam Manikpuri, Uslapur, Block Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7.3 - Deepak Markam S/o Govind Ram Markam, Aged About 21 Years R/o House No. 11/615, Magar Para, Satnami Mohalla, Ambedkar Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Nikhil Parakh For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General For Respondents No. 7.1 to : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate holding the brief 7.3 of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28. 01.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue calling the relevant records pertaining to case of the petitioners from the court/authority below concerned for its kind perusal. 10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate nature do issue summoning records of case and after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned, set 1786.3.19 aside the order dated 31.10.2017 by respondent No.3 in the peculiar factual matrix of the case. 10.3 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue restraining the respondents not to dispossess and/or demolish the houses of members of the petitioner society and other petitioners treating the respondent No.7 as the owner of the 3 respective lands in possession of the petitioner society and its members, till the matter is finally adjudicated upon by the Court of law, and in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case. 10.5 Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 2. Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner No.1/society was registered according to the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1963 on 02.09.1989. He would further submit that the society with the intent to provide plots and houses to its members, earmarked a plot situated at Village Uslapur, Patwari Circle No. 26, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). He would also submit that the property belongs to one Moti Lal Gond, who was a member of the aboriginal Scheduled Tribe; therefore, an application was moved by the Late Moti Lal under Section 165 (6) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “Code, 1959”) before the Additional Collector, Bilaspur and permission was granted vide Order dated 06.01.2000 pertaining to survey Nos. 462, 463, 466, 467 total admeasuring 2.31 acres. Thereafter, many members raised the construction of house(s) over allotted plots. It is contended that during his lifetime, Late Moti Lal never raised any objection, but after his death, his legal representatives moved an application before the Collector for reversion of land on the ground that sale-deeds were never executed by Late Moti Lal and the subject property was never mortgaged. The District Collector, Bilaspur vide Order dated 21.12.2016 rejected the application moved by the legal heirs of respondent No. 7 and advised to approach the competent Civil Court. It is further contended that in that proceeding, the petitioners/members of the society were not impleaded as a party. It is also submitted that the legal heirs of respondent No. 7 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division and 4 the same was allowed vide Order dated 31.10.2017. It is stated that the fact of allotment of plots to members of the society was within the knowledge of respondents No. 7.1 to 7.3, even though, they were not impleaded as party/respondents in that proceeding. It is further stated that as no opportunity of hearing has been afforded and the order has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice; therefore, the same may be quashed. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General and Mr. Rakesh Kumar appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that fraud was played at the time of purchase of the property. They would further submit that there was no need to implead the society or its members as a party/respondent because permission was not granted in accordance with the law. Mr. Vinay Pandey would further submit that against the order passed by the Commissioner dated 31.10.2017, a revision was preferred by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue and the proceedings were dropped on the ground that with regard to the subject land, a writ petition is pending before the High Court. They would also submit that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. From a perusal of the documents, it appears that an application under Section 165 (6) of the Code, 1959 was moved by the Late Moti Lal himself and it was allowed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur vide order dated 06.01.2000. An application was moved by the legal representatives of late Moti Lal before the Additional Collector challenging therein the transaction between Late Moti Lal and the society. 6. From a perusal of the order dated 21.12.2016, it is also apparent that the 5 petitioners/members were not impleaded as the respondents. The application moved by legal representatives of the late Moti Lal was rejected by the Collector, District Bilaspur. An appeal was preferred by the legal representatives of the late Moti Lal before the Additional Commissioner, Division Bilaspur and the same was allowed vide Order dated 31.10.2017. 7. The order would reveal that the petitioner society or its members were not impleaded as a party whereas, they were in possession of the subject land. There is an observation by the Additional Commissioner that the subject property was allotted to 32 members by the society, even though; no steps were taken to implead the society or its members. The Commissioner failed to provide the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/members. The proceeding was dropped by the Board of Revenue on the ground that the matter with regard to the subject land is pending before the High Court, and therefore, the petitioners cannot be precluded from filing the present petition when the proceedings were dropped by the Board of Revenue itself. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that petitioner No.1/its members were not provided the opportunity of hearing; therefore, the order is in utter violation of the principle of natural justice and the same is liable to be and is hereby quashed. 9. The matter is remitted back to the Commissioner, Division Bilaspur to decide the matter afresh after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the interested parties. d Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant