1 2026:CGHC:20635 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2160 of 2026 1 - Smt Nemin Bai W/o Shri Rupram Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village- Saldha, Tahsil- Devarbija, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Berla, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 4 - The Tahsildar Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.) 5 - The Tahsildar Up-Tahsil, Devarbija, District Bemetara (C.G.) 6 - The Branch Manager Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Saldha, Tahsil- Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.) 7 - Halka Patwari Patwari Halka No. 29, Village Saldha, Tahsil- Berla, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 8 - The Food Officer Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate For State : Mr. Amit Nayak, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 04/05/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to the case from the respondent authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to order dated set-aside/quash the impugned 16.03.2026 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to issue fresh token in favour of petitioner in respect of land bearing khasra no. 1279/2 for sale of paddy in Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Saldha, Tahsil-Berla, District-Bemetara (C.G.) by providing sufficient time for transportation of paddy towards Samiti. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case including cost of litigation.” 3 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner calling in question the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the respondent authorities, whereby the claim of the petitioner for procurement of paddy has been rejected. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the land bearing Khasra No. 1279/2 admeasuring 1.0400 hectares situated at Village Saldha, P.H. No. 29, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara stands recorded in her name in the revenue records on the basis of a valid patta issued by the competent authority. The petitioner has placed reliance upon P-Pustika and Form B-1 Kishtabandi Khatauni to substantiate her title and possession over the said land. It is further pleaded that the petitioner is a bona fide farmer and has also been issued a Kisan Credit Card by the Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Saldha, on the strength of which she has been availing agricultural credit facilities from time to time. According to the petitioner, in previous years also, she had been selling her paddy produce through the said Samiti without any objection from the authorities. The grievance of the petitioner arose when, during the procurement season for the year 2025–26, she approached the respondent authorities for issuance of registration and token for sale of paddy, but the same was initially denied on oral grounds. The petitioner thereafter submitted representations before the competent authorities, including in a Jandarshan proceeding. Subsequently, certain communications were issued 4 by the authorities indicating the status of the land. It is further the case of the petitioner that tokens dated 30.01.2026 and 04.02.2026 were issued in her favour; however, according to her, the same were delivered belatedly, thereby depriving her of the opportunity to transport the paddy to the procurement centre on the scheduled dates. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which was disposed of with a direction to the Collector, Bemetara to consider her representation and to take appropriate action after physical verification of the crop. Pursuant thereto, an inquiry was conducted. A spot inspection was carried out by the concerned Patwari on 10.03.2026, wherein 134 bags of paddy loaded in a tractor trolley were found. However, thereafter, the Food Officer submitted a report dated 13.03.2026 stating that despite issuance of token and opportunity, the petitioner had failed to bring the paddy for sale within the stipulated time and that the procurement period had already come to an end. Ultimately, by the impugned order dated 16.03.2026, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the paddy in question did not appear to be her own agricultural produce and was suspected to have been procured from other sources. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the material available on record. It is contended that once the respondents themselves issued tokens in favour of the petitioner, they cannot subsequently 5 take a contradictory stand that the paddy does not belong to her. Such action, according to the learned counsel, reflects non- application of mind and arbitrariness. It is further argued that the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to sell her produce due to the fault of the authorities, inasmuch as the tokens were delivered to her on the very date of procurement, and that too in the evening, making it impossible for her to comply within time. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner holds more than 2.50 acres of agricultural land, and as per the policy of the State Government, the permissible yield would justify the quantity of 134 bags of paddy found during inspection. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the authorities is based merely on presumption and conjecture. It is also contended that the petitioner has been a regular cultivator, has availed agricultural credit facilities, and had been selling her produce through the Samiti in earlier years, which establishes her bona fides. Lastly, it is urged that the petitioner, being an old and infirm lady, would suffer grave financial hardship if her produce is not procured at the minimum support price, and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and supports the impugned order. It is submitted that adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioner for bringing her paddy to the procurement centre, and tokens were duly issued. However, the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity within the prescribed 6 time. It is further submitted that upon inquiry and verification, the competent authority found discrepancies regarding the ownership and source of the paddy, and based on the report of the Food Officer and other materials on record, a conscious decision has been taken. It is contended that the procurement process is governed by strict guidelines and timelines, and once the procurement period has expired, no direction can be issued for procurement beyond the prescribed period. Learned State counsel submits that the impugned order has been passed after due consideration of all relevant aspects and does not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 7. At the outset, it is to be noted that the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters involving factual adjudication and administrative decisions is limited. Unless the impugned action is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or in violation of statutory provisions, this Court would be slow in interfering with such decisions. In the present case, it is not in dispute that tokens were issued in favour of the petitioner. However, it is equally evident from the record that the petitioner did not bring the paddy to the procurement centre within the stipulated time. The explanation furnished by the petitioner regarding delayed receipt of tokens is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be conclusively adjudicated in writ proceedings. 7 8. Further, the competent authority, pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court, conducted an inquiry and obtained reports from the concerned officers, including the Food Officer. The report clearly indicates that despite opportunity, the petitioner failed to supply the paddy within time and that the procurement season had come to an end. The most crucial aspect of the matter is the finding recorded by the competent authority that the paddy in question did not belong to the petitioner and appeared to have been procured from other sources. This finding is based on factual verification and assessment carried out by the field officers. In absence of any cogent material to demonstrate that such finding is perverse or wholly unsupported by record, this Court cannot substitute its own view. 9. So far as the contention regarding land holding and probable yield is concerned, the same, by itself, cannot conclusively establish that the entire quantity of paddy found belonged to the petitioner. The authorities are entitled to verify the genuineness of the produce in order to prevent misuse of the procurement system. It is also pertinent to note that the procurement process is time- bound and regulated by policy decisions of the State Government. Once the procurement period has expired, no mandamus can be issued to extend the same or to compel the authorities to accept the produce. 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 16.03.2026 has been 8 passed after due inquiry and application of mind and does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or perversity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge