1 2025:CGHC:11244 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1877 of 2015 1 - Balchand Oswal S/o Late Shri Nathmal Oswal, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Village Mahroomkalan, Tehsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, 2 - Anandram Mahara, S/o Late Shri Raruha, Aged About 73 Years R/o Village Mahroomkalan, Ward No. 6, Tehsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Rajnandgaon, Collectorate Office, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 3 - Commissioner, Directorate Of Industries, 2nd Floor, L I C Of India, Commercial Complex, Pandri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - General Manager, District Industries Centre (D I C), Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2025.03.07 16:10:29 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Government Advocate and Mr. T.S. Sahu, Panel Lawyer SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 06/03/2025 1. The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 26.12.2014 passed by respondent No.2/Collector, Rajnandgaon (Annexure P/24), whereby, the representation/application filed by the petitioners for payment of compensation has been dismissed on the ground that they are not entitled for the same as the subject land is the Government land and in the revenue record, the same is recorded as Shamilat Charagah. The petitioners along with 6 others were awarded compensation in lieu of acquisition of land - Khasra No.928 admeasuring 54.924 hectare. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the residents of Village Mehrunkala, Tehsil Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon. The State Government with an intent to establish and develop a new Industrial area in and around the said village Mehrumkala, initiated acquisition proceeding in the said village. The State Government issued the Notification dated 31.3.2010 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of 54.924 hectares of the subject land. After due enquiry, a draft award was prepared on 9.6.2010 by the Land 3 Acquisition Officer, Khairagarh and the concerned Department i.e. Commissioner, Directorate of Industries, Raipur also deposited the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.6,69,68,833/-, but the awarded amount was not disbursed to the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners were constrained to filed WPC No.1592/2014, wherein, an order was passed on 1.9.2014 directing the Collector, Rajnandgaon to consider the petitioners’ representation and take appropriate steps towards payment of compensation in accordance with the award. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 26.12.2014 was passed by the Collector, Rajnandgaon. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Collector, Rajnandgaon has wrongly recorded a finding that the subject land is a Government land and has been registered in the revenue record as Shamilat Charagah. He submits that the State has admitted the fact that the ancestors of the petitioners have been registered as the owners in the Revenue Record. He would further submit that the even an award has been passed in favour of the petitioners for grant of compensation in the land acquisition proceeding, however, the Collector was having no authority to reopen the same in a separate proceeding. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that after passing of the award, the villagers raised an objection, on which, an enquiry was made and it was revealed that the subject land is Shamilat Charagah. and the same is recorded in the revenue record. He would draw attention towards Chakbandhi Misal pertaining to the year 1954- 55 (Annexure R/1), wherein, the owner’s name has been recorded in 4 column No.3 i.e. the State of MP and the possession holders names have been shown in column No.2 i.e. the private persons - Roopram and others. Learned counsel for the State would further submit that based on possession alone, the petitioners do not become owners because mere possession of property does not automatically confer ownership and in respect of the subject land, the State does remain the owner. He would further submit that the impugned order has been passed in light of the observations made in the order dated 28.1.2011 passed in WP(227) No.116/2010 by this Court and the relevant extract (para10) thereof reads thus : 10. From the above, it would be clear that firstly application under Section 237 of the Revenue Code submitted by respondent No.2 was not maintainable before the Commissioner, Raipur Division and further that in view of provision contained in Section 22 of the Act, the holder of the land ceases to have any right once the consolidation is confirmed and the word "charagan" is entered in the revenue record in pursuance to the confirmation of consolidation scheme. 5. Learned counsel for the State would further submit that Section 242(3) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 clearly stipulates that any person aggrieved by any entry made in the revenue record may, within one year from the date of publication of such record under sub- section (2), institute a suit in a Civil Court to have such entry cancelled or modified. However, in the present case, no such steps were taken by the petitioners, therefore, the entries made in the Government record are final and conclusive. He would further submit that the 5 petitioners have categorically admitted that the subject land is used by the villagers as Charagah. In view of the aforesaid backdrop, the Petition has no substance and thus, learned counsel for the State prays to dismiss the same. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. Admittedly, in the Revenue entry in Chakhbandhi Misal pertaining to the year 1954-55 (Annexure R/1), Roopram Lodhi and others have been shown as the possession holders of the subject land and the State of MP has been shown as an owner of the said property. Moreover, on perusal of the reply of the State, it is revealed that the old Khasra of the subject land was 781 and the same was renumbered as 928 (Annexure R/2). In the Khasra entries pertaining to the years 1975-76 to 1979-80, in column No.12 (remarks column), Khasra Nos.928, 929 and 930 have been mentioned as grazing land (Charagah). 8. In the order dated 28.1.2011 passed in WP(227) No.116/2010, it has been materially observed that when charagan is mentioned in the revenue record as a result of confirmation of consolidation, such encumbrance is binding on the holder of the land and he ceases to have any right in or against the land so encumbranced. It was further observed that the consolidation order is not appealable under Section 25 of the Central Provinces Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1928 (Act No.VIII of 1928), but is revisable under Section 26 of the said Act. 9. In view of the above as also in light of the observations made in the order dated 28.1.2011, this Court is of the view that the Collector, while passing the order impugned, has rightly observed that the since subject 6 land has been recorded as Charagah land in the revenue entries, the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation. 10. For the foregoing, this Court does not find any merit or substance to issue any direction in favour of the petitioners. 11. Consequently, the Petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna