Chattisgarh High Court
Daulat Ram Gond vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 August, 2022
Page 1 of 4
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
W.P.(227) No. 518 of 2018
1. Daulat Ram Gond S/o Shri Tijakram Gond, Aged About 40 Years R/o
Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District
Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
2. Ramesh Kumar Gond, S/o Shri Anandram Gond, Aged About 49
Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District
Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
3. Premshankar Patel, S/o Shri Hetram Patel, Aged About 35 Years R/o
Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District
Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
4. Manohar Lal, S/o Shri Sharda Prasad, Aged About 47 Years R/o
Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District
Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
5. Ravindra Kumar, S/o Shri Tulsiram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village
Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund
(Chhattisgarh).
6. Anand Kumar Patel, S/o Shri Nilkant Patel, Aged About 34 Years R/o
Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District
Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
7. Roshanlal Patel, S/o Shri Pilakram Patel, Aged About 46 Years R/o
Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District
Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
8. Dwarika, S/o Shri Bhakti, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Malidih,
Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund
(Chhattisgarh).
9. Subhash Kumar Patel, S/o Shri Ramdin Patel, Aged About 35 Years
R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District
Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
10. Khemraj Patel, S/o Shri Puniram Patel, Aged About 33 Years R/o
Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District
Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
11. Dhananjay Patel, S/o Shri Yadram Patel, Aged About 48 Years R/o
Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District
Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
12. Dwarikaprasad (Died) Through Legal Heir Bhagwat Chandrakar S/o
Dwarikaprasad, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police
Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
13. Krishnakumar, S/o Shri Suratlal, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village
Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund
(Chhattisgarh).
Page 2 of 4
14. Ramkumar Patel, S/o Shri Suratlal Patel, Aged About 41 Years R/o
Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District
Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
15. Harishankar Patel, S/o Shri Fodilal Patel, Aged About 44 Years R/o
Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District
Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
16. Nathuram Sen, S/o Shri Ganguram Sen, Aged About 55 Years R/o
Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District
Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
17. Gesh Kumar Patel, S/o Shri Pilauram Patel, Aged About 40 Years R/o
Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District
Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
18. Shivkumar, S/o Shri Bindeshri, Aged About 59 Years R/o Village
Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund
(Chhattisgarh).
19. Kirtan, S/o Shri Sonsai, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Malidih,
Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund
(Chhattisgarh).
20. Anandram Patel, S/o Shri Ruplal Patel, Aged About 46 Years R/o
Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District
Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
21. Ugrasen, S/o Shri Chandrika, Aged About 49 Years R/o Village
Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund
(Chhattisgarh).
22. Shambu, S/o Shri Sakirtan, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Malidih,
Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund
(Chhattisgarh).
23. Ratilal, S/o Shri Butu, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police
Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
24. Tulsiram, S/o Shri Hariram, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Malidih,
Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund
(Chhattisgarh).
25. Udhav Prasad, S/o Shri Kamal Prasad, Aged About 42 Years R/o
Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District
Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, Tahsil And
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. The Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya
Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
Page 3 of 4
3. The Collector, Mahasamund, Collectorate Campus, Mahasamund,
P.S. Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.
4. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mahasamund, Collectorate Campus,
Mahasamund, P.S. Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh.
5. The Divisional Forest Officer, Mahasamund, Forest Department, Civil
Lines, Nearby Collectorate, P.S. Mahasamund, Tahsil And District
Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
6. The Deputy Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Mahasamund,
Civil Lines, Nearby Collectorate, Tahsil And District Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Shri Rajat Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent/ State : Ms. Priyamvadha Singh, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
26.08.2022
Heard.
1) This petition has been brought being aggrieved by the order
dated 08.02.2018 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Collector,
District Mahasamund in Revenue Case No.28B-121 year 2017-
18, by which Van Adhikar Manyata Praman Patra granted to the
petitioners were cancelled.
2) The petitioners are permanent resident of Village Malidih, Tahsil
and District Mahasamund. The petitioners were granted lease of
forest lands in the year 2013-14.
3) Further grievance of the petitioners is that the State Government
is not purchasing the paddy cultivated and produced from the
agricultural land which was given through Van Adhikar Manyata
Praman Patra to the petitioners.
4) At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
now the State has started to purchase the paddy from the
present petitioners and thus, the petition may be disposed of in
light of the judgment passed in W.P.(227) No.755 of 2014 and
the similar issue was involved in that case.
5) Learned State counsel has no objection.
6) Considering the fact that the lease which was granted to the
petitioners in this case and the lease granted to the petitioners in
W.P.(227) No.755 of 2020 are same and they belong to same
village, therefore, this petition is disposed of in light of the ratio
laid down in W.P.(227) No. 755 of 2020.
7) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nimmi
