1 2025:CGHC:1051-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 893 of 2024 1 - Bhivendra Bahadur (Wrongly Mentioned As Birendra Bahadur) S/o Late Rudreshwar Sharan Sing, Aged About 58 Years R/o Bandhvapara (Rajapara) Champa, Tehsil Champa, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ----- (Respondent No.6 In Writ Petition) 2 - Tamendra Bahadur S/o Late Rudreshwar Sharan Sing, Aged About 56 Years R/o Bandhvapara (Rajapara) Champa, Tehsil-Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) -----(Respondent No.7 In Writ Petition) 3 - Pushpanjali Kumari D/o Late Rudreshwar Sharan Sing, Aged About 54 Years R/o Bandhvapara (Rajapara) Champa, Tehsil-Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) -----(Respondent No.8 In Writ Petition) 4 - Mahant Lal Das S/o Guru Rai Charan Das, Aged About 95 Years R/o Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) -----(Respondent No.5 In Writ Petition) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Board Of Revenue Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ----- (Respondent No.1 In Writ Petition) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.01.09 11:13:03 +0530 2 2 - Collector, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) -----(Respondent No.2 In Writ Petition) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ----- (Respondent No.3 In Writ Petition) 4 - Naib Tahsildar Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ----- (Respondent No.4 In Writ Petition) 5 - Santu Lal S/o Late Beduram, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village- Bodsara, Tehsil-Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Petitioner No.1 In Writ Petition) 6 - Sitaram Rohidas S/o Late Deduram, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village-Bodsara, Tehsil-Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ----- (Petitioner No.2 In Writ Petition) 7 - Savitri Bai Wd/o Sakharam Satnami, Aged About 67 Years R/o Vilalge Bodsara, Tehsil-Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ---- (Patitioner No.3 In Writ Petition) 8 - Anurudh Kumar Shriwas S/o Late Dhaniram, Aged About 50 Years R/o Vilalge Bodsara, Tehsil-Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ---- (Patitioner No.4 In Writ Petition) 9 - Roopchand S/o Late Bhakhala Satnami, Aged About 60 Years R/o Vilalge Bodsara, Tehsil-Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Deceased) ----(Patitioner No.5 In Writ Petition) 10 - Melaram S/o Late Hetram Satnami, Aged About 51 Years R/o Vilalge Bodsara, Tehsil-Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ---- (Patitioner No.6 In Writ Petition) 3 11 - Ramprasad S/o Late Banmali Sahu, Aged About 59 Years R/o Vilalge Bodsara, Tehsil-Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ---- (Patitioner No.7 In Writ Petition) 12 - Dilip Kumar S/o Late Roop Kumar Satnami, Aged About 39 Years R/o Vilalge Bodsara, Tehsil-Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ---- (Patitioner No.8 In Writ Petition) 13 - Vijay Kumar Sahu S/o Late Jantu, Aged About 63 Years R/o Vilalge Bodsara, Tehsil-Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ----(Patitioner No.9 In Writ Petition) 14 - Saroj Dheemar S/o Late Seetaram, Aged About 51 Years R/o Vilalge Bodsara, Tehsil-Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ---- (Patitioner No.10 In Writ Petition) 15 - Santu Lal Mehar S/o Late Chhatu, 59 R/o Vilalge Bodsara, Tehsil- Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ----(Patitioner No.11 In Writ Petition) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. For Respondent(s) : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Kishore Narayan, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate 4 for respondent / State as well as Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel for concerned respondents. 2. The appellants have filed this writ appeal against the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C). No. 523 of 2017 (Santu Lal and Others vs. Board of Revenue Bilaspur and Others) whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / respondents No. 5 to 15 herein. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the grandmother of Appellant no. 1 to 3 Ramwati was the owner of land bearing khasra no. 314/6 admeasuring area 15.65 acers situated in village Bodsara, District Janjgir Champa. The said Ramwati by a deed dated 07.11.1969 entered into agreement with Appellant no. 4 Mahant Lal Das whereby, she had taken a loan of Rs. 18,000/- from Appellant no. 4 and agreed in the deed that in the event Ramwati failed to pay the said loan, the Appellant no. 4 would be entitled to take this land after taking legal actions. On 29.05.1972, the said Ramwati died leaving behind her legal heir namely Rudreshwar Sharan Singh. The Appellant no. 4 filed a Civil Suit bearing registration no. 3A of 1973 which was a suit for getting charge deed executed in respect of subject land. The Civil Suit was decided on 21.03.1973. Subsequently in respect of land situated in Khasra No. 314/6 area 15.65 acre in village Bodsara, a ceiling case was registered under Chhattisgarh Ceiling on Agriculture Holding Act, 1960. The said case was registered before the Additional Collector Janjgir- 5 Champa being Ceiling Case No. 11/A-90 (B)/1988-89. Whereby, the Additional Collector declared the subject land as surplus land under the Chhattisgarh Ceiling on Agriculture Holding Act, 1960 vide order dated 19.05.1989. This surplus land got vested with the state government and in the year 1990, statedly, the land was given to Respondent No. 5 to 15 by way of patta. The order of the Additional Collector dated 19.05.1989 was challenged by father of Appellant no 1 to 3 by filing a revision bearing registration No.5/A/90(B)/2002-03. Along with this revision an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed. In this case, by order dated 21.11.2003 the Board of Revenue Bilaspur observed that provision contained in section 11 of the Chhattisgarh Ceiling on Agriculture Holding Act, 1960 has not been followed by the Additional Collector. The said section which is mandatory in nature provides that the land holder should be given an opportunity to choose the land which he wants to retain with himself. This opportunity was not given to the revisionist in that case. The Additional Collector Janjgir-Champa reheard the matter in compliance of the order of Board of Revenue and by order dated 19.07.2004 observed that the finding recorded by Board of Revenue that provision of section 11 of the Chhattisgarh Ceiling on Agriculture Holding Act, 1960 was not followed is incorrect. And the matter was disposed of. The order of the Additional Collector dated 19.07.2004 was again challenged by Appellant No. 4 Mahant Lal Das by filing revenue revision case which was 6 registered as 382/ A-90 (B)/2003-04. This revision was decided by Board of Revenue by order dated 22.02.2006 whereby the order of the Additional Collector was set aside. As a result of this the land bearing Khasra No. 314/6 area 15.65 acre situated in village Bodsara was declared free from ceiling. In the meanwhile, the revenue records were mutated and the subject land is presently recorded in the name of Appellant No. 1 to 3. The two orders of board of revenue dated 21.11.2003 and 22.02.2006 were challenged in the writ petition by respondent no. 5 to 15. They also challenged the order of mutation dated 21.06.2004 and 7 orders dated 11.12.2014 passed by the Naib Tahsildar Janjgir. The appellants have raised the objection of delay before the learned single bench in their return at para 6. Thereafter, the learned single bench passed the impugned order whereby the single bench remitted the matter back to Additional Collector Janjgir-Champa and directed to restore the previous case and decide the same in compliance with direction by the Board of Revenue dated 21.11.2003. meaning thereby, the learned single bench reopened a case which was first decided on 19.05.1989 and second time decided 21.11.2003 by the same authority that is Additional Collector. Hence, this writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is completely illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law and hence is liable to be set- aside. He further submits that the learned single bench ought to 7 have dismissed the writ petition on the ground that by a single writ petition two orders of board of revenue dated 22.02.2006 and 21.06.2004 were challenged. In the same writ petition order of mutation dated 21.06.2004 was challenged. Seven orders of same date, dated 11.12.2004 by the tahsildar were challenged in the same writ petition. The order of mutation cannot be challenged in the High Court as statutory appeal lies in the court of the Tahsildar. Similarly, the order of Tahsildar cannot be challenged directly in the High Court as statutory appeal lies in the court of Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue). Two orders of Board of Revenue ought to have been challenged by separate writ petitions. For all these reasons the writ petition was not maintainable. The orders which were challenged in the writ petition were of 21.11.2003, 21.06.2004 and 22.02.2006. The writ petition was filed in the year 2017. The writ petition suffered from laches and inordinate delay of about 11 years. In para 7 of the writ petition, the petitioners in that case have stated that there is no delay in filing the writ petition. Thus, there is no attempt by the petitioner to explain the delay. In view of this the writ petition ought to have been dismissed for unexplained and inordinate delay and laches. The parties in this case belong to same Village and keep watch on each other regarding filing of any litigation with respect to subject land. The impugned orders in the writ petition were within the knowledge of the petitioner. They deliberately did not file any writ petition earlier. Therefore, the delay is deliberate. The appellants have raised the 8 objection of delay before the learned single bench in their return at para 6. The learned single bench ought to have considered their objection. There are several developments on the subject land. These developments cannot be undone at this stage. The learned single bench ought not to have entertained a stale matter. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / respondents No. 5 to 15 herein, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge while disposed of the writ petition observing as follows:- “5. It, thus, appears that the aforesaid order was passed by the Additional Collector, Janjgir-Champa without following the directions as was issued by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur on 21.11.2003 (Annexure P-1). 6. The aforesaid order as passed by the Additional Collector, Janjgir-Champa on 19.07.2004 (Annexure P-7) was, however, not questioned by said Rudreshwar Saran Singh and instead, one Mahant Lal Das has questioned the same before the Board of 9 Revenue, Bilaspur in revision, where it was registered as Revenue Revision Case No. 382/A-90(B)/2003-04, on the ground that he has acquired his interest over the land bearing Khasra No.314/6 admeasuring 12.25 acres and vide order impugned dated 22.02.2006 (Annexure P-2), the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur has quashed the said order as was passed by the Additional Collector, Janjgir-Champa on 19.07.2004, observing, inter alia, that it has been passed without complying with the directions contained in the order dated 21.11.2003 passed by the Board of Revenue and, accordingly, the order dated 19.07.2004 passed by the Additional Collector, Janjgir-Champa holding the land held by said Rudreshwar Saran Singh as a surplus land, has been set aside. 7. It, appears that the aforesaid order has been set aside by the Board of Revenue vide its order impugned dated 22.02.2006 at the instance of said Mahant Lal Das, who was admittedly, not the party before the said Ceiling proceedings. But, the petitioners, who were also not the parties in the said proceedings, have, however, as observed herein, obtained their interest over the part of the alleged surplus land bearing Khasra No.314/6 under the lease dated 11.05.1990 when the land owned by said Rudreshwar Saran Singh was held to be a surplus land by the Additional Collector, Korba vide order dated 19.05.1989 in Revenue Case No. 11/A-90(B)/2002-03 and, since the said order has been maintained by the Additional Collector, Janjgir- Champa vide its order dated 19.07.2004 without following the directions contained in the order dated 21.11.2003 as was passed by the Board of Revenue, 10 Bilaspur in Revenue Revision Case No.05/A-90(B)/2002-03, therefore, it has rightly been set aside by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur vide its order impugned dated 22.02.2006. It is, however, to be seen at this juncture that the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, while reversing the order dated 19.07.2004, passed by the Additional Collector, Janjgir-Champa, should have remanded the matter to the said authority, i.e. the Additional Collector, Janjgir-Champa for consideration of the said Ceiling Proceedings in view of the directions contained in the order dated 21.11.2003 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Revision Revenue Case No.05/A-90(B)/2002-03. Therefore, I am inclined to remit the matter back to the said authority, i.e, the Additional Collector, Janjgir- Champa with a direction to restore the said file to its register and decide the same strictly in compliance with the directions, issued by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, vide its order dated 21.11.2003 and, since the petitioners have acquired their interest with regard to part of the surplus land, as observed herein-above, they may apply for their impleadment in the said proceedings” 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondents No. 5 to 15 herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet