1 2025:CGHC:45556 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4735 of 2025 Smt. Manisha Kawre W/o Harish Kumar Kawre Aged About 44 Years Occupation- Govt. Service, R/o New Gad Colony, In Front Of S.P. Office, Avarabhatha, Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 -The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Animal Husbandry Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Directorate Of Veterinary Services, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector South Bastar- Dantewada District South Bastar- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Deputy Director Veterinary Services, South Bastar- Dantewada, District South Bastar- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Tahsildar Dantewada District South Bastar- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, PL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 2 08.09.2025 1. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. 2. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus, thereby quashing the impugned notice/order dated 12.02.2025 issued by respondent No. 5/Tahsildar (Annexure P/7); 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare that the petitioner. being merely a govt, employee and not a party to the contract, is not liable for any recovery proceedings and may further be pleased to direct Respondent No.5/Tahsildar not to take any coercive action against the movable or immovable properties of the petitioner; 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure P/8) issued/passed by Respondent No.5/Tahsildar whereby a recommendation has been made for rejecting the application of the petitioner for permission to sell the land in question; and, 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded in favor of the petitioner, including the cost of the petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, who is a government employee, is challenging the impugned notice dated 12.02.2025 (Annexure P/7) issued by respondent No.5/Tahsildar, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 70.68 lakhs sanctioned to her husband (Harish Kumar Kawre) towards certain civil works under the District Mineral Fund in the year 2021-22 on the ground that the photographs, verification 3 certificate and completion certificate have not been submitted before respondent No.4 nor satisfactory reply has been given. Learned Counsel further contended that petitioner also challenged the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure P/8), whereby respondent No.5/Tahsildar has recommended for rejecting the application of petitioner for permission to sell the land in question on the ground that against the petitioner's husband, one RRC proceeding bearing Revenue Case No.202501160400130/A- 76/2024-25 is pending respondent No.5/Tahsildar. The impugned recommendation made by respondent No.5 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law as the petitioner has no nexus with the contract awarded to her husband under the District Mineral Funds not he she was the signatory or beneficiary of the said contract. Hence, petitioner has came-up before this Court with aforesaid prayer. 4. Learned State Counsel contended that there is no demand notice issued by the respondent-authority against the petitioner, however, petitioner was directed to provide information with regard to the acquired properties. Annexure P-8 is only the recommendation made by respondent/Tahsildar to the respondent/Collector and there is no order passed by the Collector against the petitioner, therefore, prayer for quashment of communication Annexure P-8 is not sustainable. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order Annexure P-7 & P-8 including other material available on 4 record. 6. Perusal of record shows that on 23.01.2025, respondent No.3/Collector has issued an order directing respondent No.5/Tahsildar to recover of Rs.70.68 lakhs from the petitioner’s husband, to which, on 28.01.2025 respondent No.5 has issued notice to petitioner's husband directing him to deposit Rs.70.68 lakhs, which was sanctioned by respondent No.4 towards certain civil works under the District Mineral Fund in the year 2021-22. On 12.02.2025, respondent No.5 has issued impugned order/notice Annexure P-7 for recovery of Rs.70.68 lakhs from the petitioner. Husband of petitioner has challenged the order/notice dated 28.01.2025 (Annexure P-5) alongwith demand notice before this Court by way of writ petition (WPC No.871/2025), which was disposed of. Vide impugned order dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure P/8), respondent No.5/Tahsildar has recommended for rejecting the application of petitioner for permission to sell the land in question on the ground that against the petitioner's husband, one RRC proceeding (bearing Revenue Case No.202501160400130/A- 76/2024-25) is pending for consideration. 7. For ready reference, Section 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 reads as under: “Section (5). Recovery by Collector of sums recoverable as arrears of revenue by other public officers or by local authorities. Where any sum is recoverable as an arrear of 5 land-revenue by any public officer other than a Collector or by any local authority, the Collector, of the district which the office of that officer or authority is situate shall on the request of the officer or authority, proceed to recover the sum as if it were an arrear of land-revenue which had accrued in his own district, and may send a certificate of the amount to be recovered to the Collector of another district under the foregoing provisions of this Act, as if the sum were payable to himself. 8. In view of above, it is crystal clear that respondent No.5/Tahsildar has no power to issue the RRC to the public officer. 9. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner has not taken any loan and there is no recovery pending against the petitioner, however, husband of the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.70.68 lakhs, which was sanctioned to him by respondent No.4 towards certain civil works under the District Mineral Fund in the year 2021-22. In default of payment of the said amount, respondent No.5 has issued the notice to the petitioner directed her to deposit Rs.70.68 lakhs against the RRC and notice indicating that respondent No.5 has directed the petitioner to provide the information regarding the properties (Khasra No.3/37 area 0.0425; Khasra No.125/29 area 0.040 hectares & Khasra No.182/43 area 0.0480 hectares), how she has been acquired. Respondent No.5 also asked the details of income tax & GST return of the years 2023-24 from the petitioner including information regarding sale of the properties and gift deed etc. 6 10. For the foregoing discussion, impugned order/notice dated 12.02.2025 (Annexure P-7) is hereby quashed. 11. So far as submission with regard to Annexure P-8, it is only recommendation made by respondent No.5/Tahsildar to respondent No.3/Collector and there is no order passed by the Collector against the petitioner, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with said recommendation at this stage. Respondent- authority concerned shall decide the Annexure P-8 on its own merits. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with respect to proceeding under Section 165 (6-A) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959. 13. Respondent-authority concerned will be at liberty to proceed further for recovery of sum of Rs.70.68 lakhs from the borrower as per the relevant rules/law. 14. In the result, writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid direction/observation. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-