1 2025:CGHC:3894 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 222 of 2024 1 - Ashwani Kumar Bandhe S/o Late Mhan Lal Bandhe Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Baroda, Post Mana Camp, Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur (C.G.),....(Res. No. 11) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Sanjay Bandhe S/o Late Jawahar Lal Bandhe Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Baroda, P.S. Mana Camp, Tahsil Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.),.... (Petitioners) 2 - Vikrant Kumar Bandhe S/o Late Narayan Lal Aged About 31 Years R/o 18/b, Sector-1, Road No. 8, Ward No. 38, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Vijendra Kumar Bandhe @ Vikendra S/o Late Narayan Lal Aged About 31 Years R/o 18/, Sector-1, Road No. 8, Ward No. 38, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Jitin Kumar Bandhe S/o Late Narayan Lal Aged About 31 Years R/o 18/b, Sector- 1, Road No. 8, Ward No. 38, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 5 - Sandeep Bandhe S/o Late Jawahar Lal Bandhe Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Baroda, P.S. Mana Camp, Tahsil Mandir Hasod, District Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Pawan Bandhe S/o Late Jawahar Lal Bandhe Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Baroda, P.S. Mana Camp, Tahsil Mandir Hasod, District Raipur (C.G.) 7 - Pradeep Bandhe S/o Late Jawahar Lal Bandhe Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Baroda, P.S. Mana Camp, Tahsil Mandir Hasod, District Raipur (C.G.) 8 - Pratap Bandhe S/o Late Jawahar Lal Bandhe Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Baroda, P.S. Mana Camp, Tahsil Mandir Hasod, District Raipur (C.G.) 9 - Nikita Bandhe D/o Late Jawahar Lal Bandhe Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Baroda, P.S. Mana Camp, Tahsil Mandir Hasod, District Raipur (C.G.) 10 - Manju Mahle W/o Bhishm Mahle Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Baroda, P.S. Mana Camp, Tahsil Mandir Hasod, District Raipur (C.G.) 11 - Rakhi Deshlahre W/o Dindayal Deshlahre Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Baroda, P.S. Mana Camp, Tahsil Mandir Hasod, District Raipur (C.G.) 12 - Neha Rani Gendle W/o Leela Singh Gendre Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Baroda, P.S. Mana Camp, Tahsil Mandir Hasod, District Raipur (C.G.) 13 - Smt. Sarita Bai W/o Late Jawaharlal Bandhe Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Baroda, P.S. Mana Camp, Tahsil Mandir Hasod, District Raipur (C.G.) NISHA DUBEY Digitally signed by NISHA DUBEY 2 14 - Smt. Sushila Bai Bandhe W/o Late Narayan Lal Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Baroda, P.S. Mana Camp, Tahsil Mandir Hasod, District Raipur (C.G.) 15 - Labbhu Ram Bandhe S/o Lt. Bhaulal Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Baroda, P.S. Mana Camp, Tahsil Mandir Hasod, District Raipur (C.G.) 16 - Bihari Lal Bandhe S/o Late Bhaulal Aged About 84 Years R/o Village Baroda, P.S. Mana Camp, Tahsil Mandir Hasod, District Raipur (C.G.) 17 - Rameshwar Bandhe S/o Late Patru Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Baroda, P.S. Mana Camp, Tahsil Mandir Hasod, District Raipur (C.G.) 18 - Kamal Narayan S/o Late Patru Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Baroda, P.S. Mana Camp, Tahsil Mandir Hasod, District Raipur (C.G.) 19 - Smt. Mamta Jangde W/o Ramesh Kumar Jangde Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. 2, Near Purani Basti, Ravishankar University, Raipur (C.G.) 20 - N. Dipti D/o Late Narayan Lal Bandhe Aged About 32 Years R/o 18/b, T/shed, Road No. 8, Ward No. 38, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 21 - Seeta @ Chhita W/o Amar Lal Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Sundrawan, Tahsil And District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 22 - Rajgopal Sonwani S/o Punit Ram Sonwani Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Barbhata, Post Bhilai, Tahsil Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) 23 - Radha Bai Bandhe Wd/o Late Bhagwat Bandhe Aged About 74 Years R/o Village Barbhata, Post Bhilai, Tahsil Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) 24 - Ravishankar Bandhe S/o Late Bhagwat Bandhe Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Barbhata, Post Bhilai, Tahsil Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) 25 - Shivshankar Bandhe S/o Late Bahgwat Bandhe Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Barbhata, Post Bhilai, Tahsil Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) 26 - Brigdas Bandhe S/o Late Bhagwat Bandhe Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Barbhata, Post Bhilai, Tahsil Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) 27 - Jagriti Baghel W/o Bala Baghel, D/o Late Bhagwat Bandhe Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Barbhata, Post Bhilai, Tahsil Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) 28 - Bhudhwantin Sonekar D/o Late Bhagwat Bandhe Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Barbhata, Post Bhilai, Tahsil Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) 29 - Dileep Sonwani S/o Late Rajgopal Sonwani Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Dandesara, Post Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 30 - Sanju Sonwani S/o Late Rajgopal Sonwani Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dandesara, Post Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 31 - Vijay Sonwani S/o Late Rajgopal Sonwani Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Dandesara, Post Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 32 - Keshav Sonwani S/o Late Rajgopal Sonwani Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Dandesara, Post Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 33 - Anil Sonwani S/o Late Rajgopal Sonwani Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Dandesara, Post Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 34 - Chetan Sonwani S/o Late Rajgopal Sonwani Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Dandesara, Post Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 35 - Yuvrani Sonwani D/o Late Rajgopal Sonwani Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Dandesara, Post Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 36 - Khushbu Sonwani D/o Late Rajgopal Sonwani Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Dandesara, Post Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 37 - Parwati Bandhe W/o Late Prakash Das Bandhe Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Barouda, Post And P.S. Mana Camp, District Raipur (C.G.) 38 - Vijay Bandhe S/o Late Prakash Das Bandhe Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Barouda, Post And P.S. Mana Camp, District Raipur (C.G.) 39 - Avkesh Bandhe S/o Late Prakash Das Bandhe Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Barouda, Post And P.S. Mana Camp, District Raipur (C.G.) 40 - Karishma Bandhe D/o Late Prakash Das Bandhe Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Barouda, Post And P.S. Mana Camp, District Raipur (C.G.) 41 - Megha Bandhe D/o Prakash Das Bandhe Aged About 17 Years Minor, Through Petitioner No. 37 Parwati Bandhe, R/o Village Barouda, Post And P.S. Mana Camp, District-Raipur(C.G.) 42 - Sumit Bandhe S/o Late Prakash Das Bandhe Aged About 12 Years Minor, Through Petitioner No. 37 Parwati Bandhe, R/o Village Barouda, Post And P.S. ManaCamp,District-Raipur(C.G.) 43 - Nandani Bandhe W/o Late Akash Bandhe Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Barouda, Post And P.S. Mana Camp, District Raipur (C.G.) 44 - Somesh Bandhe S/o Late Akash Bandhe Aged About 6 Years Through Petitioner No. 43 Nandani Bandhe, R/o Village Barouda, Post And P.S. Mana Camp, District:Raipur(C.G.) 45 - Nitu Banjare W/o Hemant Banjare Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Lakhouli, Tahsil-Arang,District-Raipur(C.G.) 46 - Karina Kurre W/o Umesh Kurre Aged About 24 Years R/o Amlidih, District Raipur(C.G.) 47 - Kamna W/o Amardas Aged About 22 Years R/o Urla (Bada) Abhanpur, District Raipur(C.G.) 48 - Kamla W/o Khorbhahra Kurre, D/o Late Patruy Bandhe Aged About 78 Years R/o H. No. 161, Kosa Nagar, Ward No. 2, Bhilai-Durg (C.G.) 49 - Devla D/o Late Patru Bandhe Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Barouda, Post And Thana Mana Camp, District Raipur (C.G.) 50 - Sarojani W/o Ramchandra Bhargav, D/o Late Patru Bandhe Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Khola Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) 51 - Rajni Mandle W/o Jagtu Mandle, D/o Late Patru Bandhe Aged About 49 Years R/o Mission Colony, Ward No. 20, Tilda, Nevra, Raipur (C.G.) 52 - Chaitram Bandhe S/o Late Bhaula Bandhe Aged About 80 Years R/o Barouda, Post And Thana Mana Camp, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 53 - Khisori Bandhe Wd/o Late Reghwa Bandhe Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Nakta, Post And Thana Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) 54 - Gayatri Bharti W/o Bharosha Bharti Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Nakta, Post And Thana Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) 55-Union Of India Through Secretary, Defence, New Delhi 56 - Union Of India Through Secretary Supply And Rehabilitation Department, New Delhi. 57-Union Of India Through Secretary Civil Aviation New Delhi 58 - Managing Director Airport Authority Of India (Aai) Address - A.A.I. Building Sufdarjang Airport New Delhi. 59-Director Vivekanand Airport, Civil Airport Raipur (C.G.) 60 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department Mantralaya, Nata Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District-Raipur (C.G.) 61-CollectorRaipur,District-Raipur(C.G.) 62 - Sub-Divisional Officer / Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue) Raipur District Raipur(C.G.) 63-Tahsildar Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) 64 - Nava Raipur Development Authority Through Managing Director, Nava Raipur Development Authority, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 54 : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondents No.58 & 59 : Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents No.55, 56 & 57 : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Central Govt. Counsel. For State/Respondents No.60 to 63 : Ms. Mukta Tripathi, PL. For Respondent No.64 : Mr. Abhijit Mishra, Advocate. SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 22 /01/2025 1. This review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 13.8.2024 passed in WPC No.3592 of 2024 whereby this Court while disposing of writ petition directed respondents No. 7 to 9 therein to conclude the proceeding of revenue case expeditiously within specified time prescribed therein in accordance with law providing opportunity of hearing to all interested parties. 5 2. Learned counsel for review petitioner submits that all the writ petitioners have earlier raised objection in the pending revenue proceedings and their objections have been rejected. As their objections has already been rejected, they are not having any right to file writ petition seeking a direction to the revenue authorities to conclude the proceedings because the order passed in the revenue proceedings dismissing their objection, has not been challenged in higher Courts. He also contended that the lands, subject matter of the writ petition filed in the year 2004, are different lands and the proceedings pending in the revenue case of the year 2013-2014 are different, hence, the claim of the writ petitioners in WPC No.3592 of 2024 with respect to the land, which is not the subject matter of writ petition, ought not to have been considered. They have not approached this Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. 3. Mr. P.K. Tulsiyan, counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 54 would submit that in writ petition No.2928 of 2004, Mohan Lal through which the review petitioner is contesting the case is none other than son of Mohan Lal and also the power of attorney holder of other petitioners in WPC No.2928 of 2004. Pending proceeding is also arising out of the order passed in writ petition No.2928/2004, which is evident from the application/representation submitted by Mohan Lal before the Collector on 20.9.2012. Therefore, the contention of review petitioner that the land, subject matter of writ petition of the year 2004, is entirely different, is not sustainable. He next contended that the respondents revealed that the application submitted before the Collector on 20.9.2012, itself has been manipulated and have further by way of interpolation, it is mentioned that Mohan Lal Bandhe is owner of the land based on the gift-deed of the land bearing khasra No.200/1 for which FIR was also lodged against the petitioner, in which, review petitioner has obtained anticipatory bail from this Court. Final report is also submitted before the concerned Court after 6 due investigation of the crime. He contended that along with writ petition, he has enclosed the copy of the same application, in which, there is no such mention of any gift-deed has been executed in favor of Mohan Lal, which is filed as Annexure-P/9. He further pointed out that the land, which is subject matter in the revenue proceedings, are of two brothers namely Kabildas and Guharam. Kabildas died issue-less and therefore, the property of Kabildas and Guharam will be succeeded by the legal representatives of Guharam, hence, they are having the interest on the said property. He further contended that this Court has not decided the rights of the parties but have only disposed of the writ petition directing the revenue authority to decide the case after hearing all the parties. 4. Mr. Akash Pandey, counsel for respondents No. 58 & 59 would submit that as this Court has not decided the rights of the parties and based on the order if any of the writ petitioners can object to the proceedings which has already been decided. The review petitioner can very well raise an objection and that has to be decided by the Tahsildar, in which, he is having no objection. 5. Learned counsel for respective respondents No. 55 to 64 submits that the grievance raised by review petitioner is against the private respondents, therefore, they are not making any submission on merits of the case. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the submission of counsel for respondents No. 1 to 54 that there is interpolation in the application submitted before the Collector in the year 2012, is not correct. In the copy which has been filed by the writ petitioner there is use of whitener. He has placed on record two certificates copies. One obtained on 9.3.2020 and another on 17.12.2024, in both the applications, order was passed in favor of Mohan Lal by the High Court in the year 2004 with respect to khasra No.200/1 of land admeasuring 10.66 acres. 7 7. At this stage, when specific query is posed to learned counsel for the review petitioner as to whether all the objections of respondents No.1 to 54 was rejected, after going through the records, he pointed out that the objection of writ petitioner No.15 to 18 and the objections of the ancestors of the writ petitioner 1 to 9, 19 to 21, 23 to 28, 37 to 42 was rejected. He contended that there is no document with respect to any objection of the writ petitioner at serial No.10 to 14, 29 to 36, 43 to 52 to show that they have raised objection which was considered and rejected or their ancestors have filed the objection which came to be rejected. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with the record. 9. From the argument raised by counsel for respective parties, in particular the submission of counsel for the review petitioner, it is clear that the ancestors of some of writ petitioners have raised objection which was considered and rejected, whereas some of writ petitioners or their ancestors have not raised any objection. 10.In the aforementioned facts of the case with respect to writ petitioners No. 1 to 9, 19 to 21, 23 to 28, 37 to 42, who are the legal representatives of the persons whose objection, as submitted by counsel for the petitioners, is rejected, it is for the concerned authority to consider their claim of hearing, if any application is filed on their behalf, and to pass the order in accordance with law. Review petitioner will have the right to raise objection in view of the documents and proceedings available in the revenue case. 11.With respect to the writ petitioner No.10 to 14, 29 to 36, 43 to 52, learned counsel for the writ petitioners could not able to point out that they have filed objection or their objection was decided and therefore the pleading made in review petition and the submission of counsel for review petitioners that all the review petitioners have raised objection and came to be rejected, cannot be accepted. If any person wants to claim any right 8 of hearing in any of the pending proceeding, it is for him to show his interest in the said proceedings and based upon which, the concerned authority dealing with revenue case can decide application/objection, if any filed. 12.With respect to the submission of counsel for the respondent No.1 to 54 that there is interpolation in the original document, which is the basis of the revenue proceeding, is not only in the document but, the interpolation is in the records of the Tahsildar, which is serious one. Copy of the application which is filed along with writ petition as Annexure-P/9 is not a photocopy, but a certified copy obtained from the office of Nayab Nazir, Arang. In the said certified copy obtained on 30.1.2020, there is no such mention or pleading with respect to gift-deed executed in favor of Mohan Lal. Certified copy Anenxure-P/9 is obtained prior to the certified copies which are placed by the review petitioner along with the rejoinder. Those are obtained on 9.3.2020 and in the year 2024, however, this Court is not going into the said allegation/dispute because it is for the competent authority and the forum to be decided in accordance with law, more so when, as stated by counsel for respondents No.1 to 54, crime is registered and final report is also filed. 13.In view of the aforementioned observations, the review petition is disposed of . Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Nisha