Chattisgarh High Court
Ghanshyam Rajput vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 June, 2021
1
WA No. 118 of 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 118 of 2021
Ghanshyam Rajput S/o Shri Ram Niwas Rajput, Aged About
40 Years R/o Village- Janghora, P.S. And Tehsil- Pithora,
District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ---- Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Mahasamund,
District- Mahasamund (C.G.)
2. Sub Divisional Officer,(Revenue) Sub-Divisional Magistrate
Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.)
3. Tehsildar Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
4. Superintendent Of Police Mahasamund, District-
Mahasamund (C.G.)
5. Station House Officer Pithora, Tehsil- Pithora, District-
Mahasamund (C.G.)
6. Lokesh Sinha, S/o Shri Bhushan Sinha Aged About 32 Years
R/o Ward No. 9, Pithora, P.S. And Tehsil- Pithora, District
Mahasamund (C.G.)
7. Amit Agrawal, S/o Shri Bajrang Agrawal, Aged about 38
years, R/o Village Pithora, P.S. & Tehsil - Pithora, District
Mahasamund C.G.
---- Respondents
For Appellant :- Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate
For Respondent-State :- Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Dy.A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag.CJ
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
Judgment On Board
By
Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag.CJ.
WA No. 118 of 2021
08/06/2021
1. Heard.
2. Appellant has purchased land from one Ramdulari who was
holding the subject land as lessee from the Government.
The concerned Tahsildar has entertained an application filed
by respondent No.6 Lokesh Sinha for making enquiry into
the transaction as the sell in favour of appellant was without
prior permission from the Collector.
3. The learned Single Judge has refused to interfere in the
matter and has disposed of the writ petition on the ground
that the enquiry is at the initial stage and the petitioner can
avail appropriate remedy available to him under the law as
and when any orders are passed and if he feels aggrieved.
4. It is argued before us that under the scheme of Chhattisgarh
Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for brevity ' the Code, 1959' ) an
action against a Government lessee can be taken for
violation of terms of lease or on any other ground as
enumerated under Section 182 of the Code, 1959, therefore,
the proceedings before the Tahsildar is not maintainable as
the said Revenue Officer is not competent under the Code,
1959 to make such an enquiry even under Section 32 of the
Code, 1959.
5. We have perused the documents and relevant provisions of
the law. In particular, we would refer to Sub-section (7 - b)
WA No. 118 of 2021
of Section 165 of the Code, 1959 which empowers the
Collector to enquire into the transaction in relation to a
Government lease land, when the same has been
transferred without permission of the Collector.
6. In view of the above provision, it would be appropriate if the
complaint moved by respondent No.6 Lokesh Sinha being
registered as Revenue Case No.202007120800246/B-
121/2019-20 is transferred to the concerned Collector.
7. Accordingly, the subject revenue case stands transferred to
the concerned Collector who shall hear all the necessary
parties including Ramdulari, the appellant, the complainant
and other purchasers who have purchased the land from
Ramdulari.
8. Let the enquiry be completed and orders be passed in
accordance with law and on its own merits expeditiously,
preferably within a period of six months from today. Let
copy of this order be sent to the concerned Collector
forthwith.
9. Accordingly, the present writ appeal stands disposed of in
the above stated terms.
SD/- SD/-
(Prashant Kumar Mishra) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
Ayushi
