1 2025:CGHC:3303-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 24 of 2025 Punauram S/o Shri Mohan Nishad Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Sirripatharimudda, Tahsil Baghbahara, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Ravenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 5. Sub Divisional Officer (RE), Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 6. Tahsildar, Tehsil Baghbahara, District Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 7. Prafull Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Ramsahay Sharma, Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Sirripatharimudda, Tehsil Baghbahara, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Shahil Singh, Advocate. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.01.20 18:23:16 +0530 2 For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shahil Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for Respondents/State as well as Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7. 2. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s): “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Writ Appeal and the order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 2639/2024, Punauram v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.) may kindly be set- aside and also any other kind of relief be granted in the interest of justice.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ 3 Petition (C) No.2639 of 2024 (Punauram V. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed. 4. The case projected by the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge is that respondent No.7 has submitted an application for demarcation of land. After receipt of demarcation report, application under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (In short 'the Code, 1959') was also filed by respondent No.7 before the Court of Naib Tahsildar, Bagbahara, District - Mahasamund. After receipt of notice in the proceedings under Section 250 of the Code, 1959, non-applicants therein (land encroachers) have submitted reply. In the proceeding before the Naib Tahsildar, petitioner was non-applicant No.5. During pendency of proceedings under Section 250 of the Code, 1959, non-applicant No.3 and non-applicant No.6 died in the year 2014 and 2013 respectively. Application for substitution of legal representatives of deceased respondents were filed in the year 2017. Tahsildar considering that application for substitution of legal representatives of deceased respondents No.3 and 6 have been filed with delay and it has not been properly explained, dismissed the application as also dismissed the entire proceedings vide order dated 28.01.2017. Order passed by the Tahsildar was put to challenge in an appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer (R) and Appellate Authority vide order dated 4 26.02.2017 allowed the appeal and also allowed the application filed under Section Section 250 of the Code, 1959 directing restoration of possession of land to respondent No.7. The order of Sub-Divisional Officer (R) was put to challenge in second appeal filed under Section 44 (2) of the Code, 1959 by petitioner, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.07.2023 and revision before the Board of Revenue against the order passed in second appeal also came to be dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid action, the writ petitioner has preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition (C) No.2639 of 2024, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 06.11.2024 observing that the writ petitioner along with writ petition has enclosed document/certificate showing land bearing Kh. No.660/13, measuring 153 sq.m. land granted under the ownership rights of abadi land, Naksha Khasara and some order-sheets of proceedings before the Tahsildar along with appellate and revisional order. From perusal of proceedings recorded by the Naib Tahsildar on application under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 would show that application was filed on 22.11.2006 and the said proceeding was closed upon dismissal of application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C. on 28.01.2017. The order of dismissal of proceedings under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 was only on the ground that application under Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C. for substitution of legal representatives of non- 5 applicant No.3 and 6 therein was filed with delay and no sufficient explanation was offered in an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Before proceeding further, one point is to be noted that writ petitioner contested the case before Tahsildar as non- applicant No.5. In para -7 of the order (Annexure P-4), the First Appellate Authority has categorically recorded that in reply to the show cause notice, non-applicant No.5 admitted that he has encroached upon the land. The First Appellate Court also took note of the Sub-rule -4 of Rule 4 of Order 22 C.P.C.. Before this Court, learned counsel for petitioner has not refuted the admission made by writ petitioner of encroachment. However, contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that subject land is ancestral land but no document has been placed before this Court to show that part of the land bearing Kh. No.658/2, measuring 0.07 hectares is the ancestral property of writ petitioner. The First Appellate Court has also recorded that in the proceedings before the Tahsildar on 06.11.2008, non-applicants therein were granted opportunity to produce evidence in their support. No evidence was produced by them. However, this observation made by First Appellate Court was also not refuted in specific terms. 6. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant. 6 7. 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. He further submits that learned Single Judge has committed error of law by dismissed the writ petition, as such, appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set-aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant 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. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and materials available on record. 10. 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 by observing as follows:- 6. The petitioner along with writ petition has enclosed document/certificate showing land bearing Kh. No.660/13, measuring 153 sq.m. land granted under the ownership rights of 7 abadi land, Naksha Khasara and some order- sheets of proceedings before the Tahsildar along with appellate and revisional order. From perusal of proceedings recorded by the Naib Tahsildar on application under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 would show that application was filed on 22.11.2006 and the said proceeding was closed upon dismissal of application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C. on 28.01.2017. The order of dismissal of proceedings under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 was only on the ground that application under Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C. for substitution of legal representatives of non-applicant No.3 and 6 therein was filed with delay and no sufficient explanation was offered in an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 7. Before proceeding further, one point is to be noted that petitioner contested the case before Tahsildar as non-applicant No.5. In para -7 of the order (Annexure P-4), the First Appellate Authority has categorically recorded that in reply to the show cause notice, non- 8 applicant No.5 admitted that he has encroached upon the land. The First Appellate Court also took note of the Sub-rule -4 of Rule 4 of Order 22 C.P.C.. Before this Court, learned counsel for petitioner has not refuted the admission made by petitioner of encroachment. However, contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that subject land is ancestral land but no document has been placed before this Court to show that part of the land bearing Kh. No.658/2, measuring 0.07 hectares is the ancestral property of petitioner. The First Appellate Court has also recorded that in the proceedings before the Tahsildar on 06.11.2008, non-applicants therein were granted opportunity to produce evidence in their support. No evidence was produced by them. However, this observation made by First Appellate Court was also not refuted in specific terms. 8. In the aforementioned facts of the case, submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the procedure of enquiry as prescribed 9 under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 was not followed, in the opinion of this Court is not sustainable. There are concurrent finding of facts recorded by Second Appellate Court as also the Revisional Court, unless and until petitioner by cogent material/evidence is able to demonstrate that finding recorded by three Courts are perverse, no interference can be made. 9. For the forgoing discussions made here-in- above, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned. The petition being devoid of any substance, it is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.” 11. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the order of status-quo dated 26.03.2024 passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue and further proceedings of revision pending before Board of Revenue, Bilaspur. 12. 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 10 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. 13. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu