1 2025:CGHC:59861 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1013 of 2021 1 - Ramdhar (Died) Through Lrs. As Per Honble Court Order Dated 07-04-2025. 1.1 - Siyamani Baghel W/o Govind Baghel D/o Late Ramdhar, R/o Kalipur, Titirgaon, Jagdalpur, Bastar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - Tara Bai Netam W/o Dara Singh Netam D/o Late Ramdhar, R/o Nayapara Madpal, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 1.3 - Rukhmani W/o Motiram D/o Late Ramdhar, R/o Khashpara Kalipur, Titirgaon, Jagdalpur Bastar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenu, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector And District Magistrate, Bastar, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - The Additional Collector District - Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Munna Lal Nag S/o Shri Ram Nag, Aged About 30 Years R/o Dharampura, Atal Bihari Vajpaye Ward, Tehsil - Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 5- Superintendent Of Police, Bastar, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 & 5/ State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, P. L. For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 09/12/2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking following relief(s):- 2 (i) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to the subject matter of the instant case. (ii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 17/7/2020 (Annexure P/1). (iii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent no.2, to pay the entire sale consideration to the petitioner, as deposited by the Respondent no.4 before the court. (iv) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent no.5, to register an FIR against the Respondent no.4. (v) Any other order/writ/direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed. (vi) Cost of petition be also awarded. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the original writ petition was filed by one Ramdhar S/o Late Arjun, R/o Village Kalipur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar CG. During the pendency of this writ petition, he passed away. Therefore, his legal representative, the daughters, were substituted on record. It is submitted that the original petitioner was the owner of land bearing Khasra No.133/2 stitauted at PH No.61 Village Kalipur Tahsil Jagdalpur District Bastar CG. The total area of property was two hectares. Vide order dated 18.10.2007, the respondent No.3 granted the permission to the original petitioner under the provisions contained in Section 165 (7-b) of the CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short “Code of 1959”) to sell the suit property to one Balkrishna and respondent No.4 (Annexure P-2). In pursuant to the said order, the original petitioner sold 0.80 Hectare approximately 2 hectares of land to Balkrishna through respondent No.4, who acted as a broker for sale transaction. When the original petitioner approached the revenue authority to mutate the remaining portion of land in favour of his three daughters, as he was not keeping good health for a long period, he was informed by the Revenue Authority that the mutation desired by the petitioner cannot be done, as he sold the remaining piece of land to respondent No.4 in the year 2007 itself. It was the contention of the original 3 petitioner that he had never sold the land to respondent No.4. Thereafter, a complaint was made by the original petitioner before the respondent No.2. Upon receiving the complaint, the respondent No.2 registered a revenue case and notices were issued to Balkrishna and respondent No.4. On 05.03.2020, respondent No.4 and Balkrishna Mishra appeared in the Court of respondent No.2. On the said date, Balkrishna submitted a cheque of Rs. 4 lacs in favour of original petitioner, which was received by him on 11.03.2020 and subsequently honored in favour of the original petitioner. The statement of respondent No.4 was recorded, in which he stated before the Court that he had purchased the said land from the original petitioner and was required to pay consideration of Rs.15 lacs to the original petitioner. Accordingly, a cheque of Rs.5 lacs dated 11.03.2020 and Rs.10 lacs dated 23.03.2020 were deposited before respondent No.2 / the Collector, but the same was not handed over to the original petitioner. As the time period for encashing the cheques in the bank of the original petitioner has lapsed, the amount of cheques could not be transmitted to the original petitioner, therefore, this writ petition seeking above stated relief was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents admits that cheques of Rs.5 lacs and Rs. 10 lacs were submitted, and as such, the sale deed was executed in favour of respondent No.4 by the original petitioner after receiving the entire amount in cash. In order to settle the dispute, the cheques were deposited by respondent No.4. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. There is no dispute to the fact that two cheques of Rs.5 lacs and Rs.10 lacs, totaling Rs.15 lacs were deposited by respondent No.4 before the Collector/ respondent No.2. It is also undisputed that the period for presenting/ encashing the said cheques in the name of original petitioner expired, and therefore, the cheques were not honored. This Court, on 08.10.2025, directed respondent No.4 to apprise the Court as to whether the said cheques were encashed. The Court further directed that, in the event the cheques are not encashed, respondent No.4 shall appear before this Court along with a demand draft of the said amount and the matter was directed to be listed on 28.10.2025. On 28.10.2025 the respondent No.4 could not appear, and the matter was 4 posted to 19.11.2025. On 19.11.2025, it was submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.4 that he would hand over a demand draft of Rs.10 lacs to the petitioner. This is how the matter is posted today. Today, respondent No.4 appeared in person and supplied three bankers cheques bearing No.976845 (amount of Rs.3,33,000/-), No.976844 (amount of Rs.3,33,000/-), No.976846 (amount of Rs.3,34,000/-) all dated 04.12.2025, drawn on the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Jagdalpur. These cheques were issued in the names of petitioner No.1, petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.3 respectively, and were handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner who acknowledged the same. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that as respondent No.4 agreed to pay Rs. 15 lacs, he should be directed to pay the remaining Rs. 5 lacs, either in installments or by post-dated cheque. 7. Opposing the same, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that, in fact, the amount for the sale transaction has already been paid and that cheques were deposited before respondent No.2 in order to settle the dispute. 8. Be that as it may, as the amount of Rs.10 lacs has been given to the petitioners in equal distribution by way of bankers cheques, this Court is not inclined to continue with the proceedings. Thus, this writ petition is disposed of. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to seek remedy against respondent No.4, if available under the law. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.12.15 14:57:17 +0530