1 2026:CGHC:26561 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 66 of 2022 1 - Kamlesh Verma S/o Paltan Verma, Aged About 44 Years R/o. Ridhi Sidhi Colony, Phase -2, Rajnadgaon Police Station Station Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 2 - Panchulal Pandhare S/o Motilal, R/o. Kasoli, Tahsil Arjuni, Morgaon, District Gaondia (M.H.) 3 – Smt. Rekha Niware, R/o. Village Tirodi, Tahsil Katangi District Balaghat (M.P.), 4 - Nilesh S/o Premdas Ramteke, R/o. Shastri Ward Gondia (M.H.), 5 - Buddhdas S/o Premdas Ramteke R/o. Sister Colony, Chandrapur, (M.H.), 6 - Bhikhamchand S/o Bushan Sahu R/o Paragaon, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnangaon Chhattisgarh. 7 - Ganesh Ram Verma S/o Rameshwar Verma R/o. Ghongha, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 8 - Ramesh Kumar Sahu R/o. Vilage Rewadih, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.07.02 12:57:19 +0530 2 9 - Panna Lal Sahu, R/o. Parasbod, P.S. Ghumka, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 10 - Gayatri Verma W/o Kamlesh Verma, R/o. Riddhi Siddhi Colony, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 11 - Udaksh Kumar Verma S/o Bhaiya Lal Verma R/o. Riddhi Siddhi Colony, Rajnangaon Chhattisgarh. 12 - Vedprakash Verma S/o Chaturbhuj Verma R/o. Riddhi Siddhi Colony, Rajnangaon Chhattisgarh. 13 - Minadhar Verma S/o Kamleshwar Verma R/o Sukhatal, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kawardha Chhattisgarh. 14 - Pardeshi Patel S/o Bihari Patel, R/o. Sarekha, P.S. And Tahsil Kawardha, District Kawardha Chhattigarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Gajendra Prakash Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. DR Minj, Dy. Advocate General. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 30/06/2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. The appellant has preferred the present miscellaneous appeal under Section 16 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 (henceforth referred to as “the Act, 2005”), challenging the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (under the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005), Kabirdham (Kawardha), Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as “Special Judge”) in Civil M.J.C. No. 22/2019, whereby the learned Special Judge has made 3 absolute the order dated 22.06.2019 (Annexure A-3) passed by the District Magistrate, Kabirdham. 3. The brief facts of the case are that various investors lodged an FIR at Police Station Bhoramdev against the Directors of “Vee Realties India Limited, Registered Office Madhulika, Near Axix Bank, Mamta Nagar Chowk, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon (CG)”, alleging that they had cheated the investors by collecting huge amounts from them on the pretext of doubling their investments. Based on the said report, Crime No.75/16 was registered under Sections 420 and 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”), Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1978”), and Section 10 of the Act, 2005. 4. On the basis of the report dated 30.05.2019 submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Kabirdham, the District Magistrate initiated proceedings under Section 7 of the Act, 2005 and attached various lands including Khasra No.91/1 (new Khasra No.91/103), Rakba 0.036 hectares, situated at Village Kawardha (Kabirdham), Revenue Circle, Kawardha. 5. The District Magistrate, Kabirdham, vide order dated 22.06.2019 (Annexure A-3), passed an order of attachment under Section 7 of the Act, 2005, which was thereafter referred to the Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) for making the attachment order absolute. Learned Special Judge/Sessions Judge, vide impugned order dated 24.03.2022 (Annexure A-1), made the attachment order absolute. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits the appellant was formerly a Director of VEE Realties India Limited but had resigned from the said 4 post. In this regard, he draws attention of the Court to Annexure A-2 dated 23.01.2014. He further submits that when the District Magistrate, Kabirdham, passed the attachment order on 22.06.2019, the appellant was no longer a Director of the said company. It is further submitted that the land bearing Khasra No.91/1 (new Khasra No.91/103) is the appellant’s personal land, which was purchased from his own independent source of income, therefore, the attachment of the said land is illegal. Hence, learned counsel prays that the present appeal may be allowed and the orders passed by the District Magistrate, Kabirdham, as well as the Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha), be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the appellant had filed a reply before the District Magistrate, Kabirdham, wherein he categorically admitted that he was a Director of Vee Realties India Limited and the subject land stands recorded in the revenue records in his name as proprietor of Vee Realties India Limited, Rajnandgaon. He further submits that the appellant has failed to produce any document to demonstrate the fact that the said land was purchased by him from his independent source of income. Aforesaid fact has also been admitted by the appellant in his written submissions (Annexure A-4) filed by him before the District Magistrate. Hence, learned counsel supports the orders passed by the District Magistrate, Kabirdham, as well as the Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Kabirdham. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. As contended by learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant was one of the Directors of Vee Realties India Limited. It is the appellant’s 5 contention that he resigned from the said post in the year 2014. In this regard, he draws attention of the Court to Annexure A-2 dated 23.01.2014, which is resignation application sent by the appellant to the Board of Directors of the company. However, the appellant has not placed any document on record to show that his resignation was accepted by the Board of Directors. He has also not filed any document to substantiate aforesaid contention that the Registrar of company has removed his name from the list of Board of Directors of the company. Therefore, merely on the basis of resignation application (Annexure A- 2), it cannot be held that the appellant ceased to be a Director of the aforesaid company w.e.f. 23.01.2014. 10. Annexure A-4 is the written submission filed by the appellant. In para 6 of the same, the appellant had made statement which is reproduced hereinunder:- “6. यह कि, किषय कित सम्पत्ति खास र्धा स्थित भूमि खसरा नं. 91/103 राकबा 0.036 हेक्टेयरा अनाद क्र. 09  स्-अर्जि त किनाजि भूमि ह"। सन्यत% प्रत्य/हर दस्त अथ आदना + किनाष्पादना  सय पाक्षर  ना, किपात  ना, आय/, व्यसय/पाशा तथ उना किनास ना  किरण दिदय त ह" इस6 प्रर उक्त किषय कित भूमि 8 क्रय रत सय किक्रय पात्र पा 6यना (बयना) + बत;र क्र त अनाद क्र. 09  ना, किपात  ना, आय/ ए पाशा  किरण दशाना  द;रना दस्त लेखा  द्वार अनाद क्र. 09  व्यसय/पाशा + - स चाले "6 रिरयलिलेदिBसC इ किDय म्पना6" लिलेखा गय थ, चा/ कि बयना किनाष्पादना  सय अनाद क्र. 09 उक्त म्पना6  स चाले पाद पार पाद थ इस रण व्यसय/पाशा + स चाले "6 रिरयलिलेदिBसC इ किDय म्पना6" लिलेखा गय थ। किषय कित भूमि  बयना ए रस् रिरD अले8ना6य ह"। किषय कित भूमि  रस् अत्तिभूलेखा + बत;र भूमिस्6 अनाद क्र. 09  ना द ह" इसस स्पष्ट ह" कि 6 किषय कित भूमि अनाद क्र. 09 H किनाजि भूमि ह"।” 11. Perusal of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Kabirdham, particularly the second paragraph of paragraph 9 thereof, also shows that, in his reply, the appellant admitted that the subject land bearing Khasra No.91/1 (new Khasra No.91/103), Rakba 0.036 hectares, is recorded in his name as proprietor of VEE Realties India Limited, Rajnandgaon. Thus, it is the contention of the appellant himself that the said land is recorded in revenue records in his name while describing him as proprietor of Vee Realties India Limited, Rajnandgaon. The appellant has not filed any document to prove the fact that the said land was purchased by him from his independent source of income. He has also failed to prove that he ceased to be a Director of the company since 2014, particularly when the aforesaid land was purchased by him while describing himself as proprietor of the said company. 12. In view of the above discussion, the appellant has failed to satisfy this Court that the orders passed by the District Magistrate, Kabirdham as well as the Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) suffer from any perversity or illegality. Accordingly, the present miscellaneous appeal is dismissed at the motion stage. 13. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar