1 2025:CGHC:2973-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 1 of 2025 1 - Smt. Asha Baghel D/o Late Premdas Manikpuri Aged About 53 Years W/o Tulsidas Baghel, R/o Mandindevi Chowk, Ward No. 12, Narayanpur, Tahsil And District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Anusuiya Netam D/o Late Adamdas Aged About 47 Years W/o Dayal Singh, R/o Kumharpara, Narayanpur, Tahsil And District Narayanpur, Civil And Revenue District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Secretariat, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector And District Magistrate Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer(R) Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Tahsildar Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Ms. Iturani Mukherjee, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.01.17 18:14:04 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17.01.2025 1. Heard Ms. Iturani Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. I.A. No.01 of 2025 has been filed to condone delay of 307 days in preferring the appeal. 3. Considering the grounds mentioned in the application (I.A. No.01 of 2025), the same is allowed. Delay of 307 days in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 4. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 5. By way of this writ appeal, appellants have prayed for following relief(s): “It is, therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the appeal and be pleased to interfere in the order dated 29-11-2023 (Annexure A-1) and also be pleased to pass an order as the relief sought by the petitioners in the writ petition may be 3 considered and allowed, in the interest of justice.” 6. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.1376 of 2017 (Asha Baghel and another v. State of Chhattisgarh and other), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners/appellants has been dismissed. 7. The case projected by the writ petitioners/appellants before the learned Single Judge is that father of appellants were appointed as Kotwar vide order dated 30.04.1969 and 16.03.1989 respectively. Therefore, certain piece of land were allotted to them as service land as provided under Section 183 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959. The said land belongs to Khasra No.11/2 and 11/3 at Village Narayanpur, which was recorded in the name of father of the appellants in the revenue record. After death of father of the appellants, they were discharging the duties of Kotwar at Village Narayanpur and were in possession of the service land, which was allotted to their forefathers/fathers. The respondent No.2 without their being any acquisition of land of the appellants and without paying any compensation to them constructed Jila Panchayat building and other Government officials building over the land of the appellants, which was allotted to them as service land. 4 8. Since the construction over the land of the appellants was raised without acquisition of land and without payment of compensation to the appellants, they have filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (C) No.1376 of 2017, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 29.11.2023. 9. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, instant appeal has been filed by appellants. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not in accordance with law and no disputed question of facts are involved requiring evidence but without considering the entirety of the aspects and therefore, the same cannot be allowed. He further submits that learned Single Judge has committed error of law by allowing the writ petition, as such, appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set-aside. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/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 passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference. 5 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and materials available on record. 13. Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perusing the impugned order, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order observing as follows:- “7. The claim of the petitioners that the subject land is the service land allotted to their forefathers in lieu of the service rendered by their forefathers as well as father as Kotwar of the village. Although the names of father of the petitioners and forefathers have been recorded in the revenue record, but the fact remains that the title of land cannot conferred on their forefathers or fathers because of the reason that the same is in the nature of service land and as and when they removed from service, the land is to revert back to the State Govt. The petitioners cannot claim any right or title over the service land. Further, from perusal of the revenue record of Khasra Panchshala 6 of the year 2010-11 (Annexure-R/2), it appears that the land of Khasra No.11/3, area 3.562 hectare is remained bais (iM+rh) land for about 5 years and that on the report submitted by the Tahsildar Narayanpur, the Collector has passed an order on 29-05- 2013 and declared the land of Khasra No. 11/3, area 3.562 hecatre as Govt. Nazul (Grass Land) while exercising its power under Section 183 read with Section 237 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959. The order dated 29-05-2013 has not been challenged by the petitioners in any forum. Since the petitioners cannot claim any title over the service land allotted to their fathers/forefathers in lieu of service rendered as Kotwar of the village and that in view of non-using the subject land for about 5 years and kept it as bais land by the order dated 29-05-2013 it has been declared as Govt. Nazul (Grass) land and Jila Panchayat and other ancillary building construction has been raised there on, the petitioners have not entitled for any compensation against the 7 land which was the service land. Further, in view of the fact that the order dated 29-05- 2013 has not been challenged by the petitioners, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in the present writ petition.” 14. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an intra Court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned orders. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 15. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu