Chattisgarh High Court
Anil Kumar Jain vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 January, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Reserved for Orders on : 15/12/2021
Order Passed on : 21/01/2022
Writ Petition (227) No.440 of 2021
Anil Kumar Jain S/o Anup Chand Jain Aged About 54 Years R/o
Shankar Nagar, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster
Management Department, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. The Additional Tahsildar, Mandir Hassaud, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Thakur Ramchandra Ji Swami, Through Secretary- Mahendra Kumar
Agrawal S/o Jaitu Sao Math, Purani Basti, Raipur, Tahsil And District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal with Ms. Astha Sharma
Advocates.
For State : Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 : Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rashika
Soni, Ms. Deepa Jha and Mr. Shiv Kumar
Shrivastava, Advocates.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
CAV Order
21/01/2022
1. Considered on the application praying for referring this case to the
Larger Bench in the interest of justice.
2. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3 that
the present petition under Article 227 Constitution of India is not
maintainable. The petition has been brought challenging the order of
Additional Tehsildar dated 23.08.2021 by which a dispossession warrant
was issued against the petitioner.
3. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Full Bench of this High Court in
the case of Tulsiram Verma and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and
Others reported in AIR 2020 Chhattisgarh 1, in which it has been
observed that there are catena of decisions rendered by the Apex Court
and various High Courts, that the judicial discipline is of paramount
importance and the same cannot be watered down. Therefore, in such a
case, where there are two conflicting judgments on the same point, the
course of action is open to refer the matter to a larger bench.
4. It is submitted that in the case of Dr. Ram Sharan Lal Tripathi Vs. State
of Chhattisgarh & Others reported in AIR 2016 Chh 17, the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court had expressed a view that the Board of Revenue is
not the Civil Court but is a revenue authority established under
Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. Therefore, in case of orders
passed by this Court, a Writ Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of
India shall not be maintainable.
5. It is further submitted that this Court in the case of Sunil Tawari Vs.
Janak Ram Kurre reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Chh 2591 has given a
different view holding that depending upon the facts and circumstances
of the case, it shall be the choice of the parties to pursue the relief either
under Article 226 or under Article 227 Constitution of India.
6. Placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union
of India and Others Vs. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. reported in AIR 1986
Supreme Court 806, it is submitted that there is clear decision of the Full
Bench of the Supreme Court that a Co-ordinate Bench cannot differ
from the decision of the earlier Bench. Subsequent Bench finding itself
unable to agree with the earlier decision can refer the earlier decision to
a Larger Bench.
7. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Allahabad High Court
in the case of Natraj Chhabigrih, Sigra Vs. State reported in AIR 1996
Allahabad 375 (Full Bench). It is submitted that the present petition is
not maintainable on this ground also that there is remedy available to
challenge the impugned order in Appeal under Section 44 of C.G. Land
Revenue Code, 1959. Hence, the application may be allowed and the
matter be referred for decision to a Larger Bench.
8. In reply, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is
no such issue present in this case regarding the manner of challenging
the order of Board of Revenue. The conflict in the judgments of this
Court in Dr. Ram Sharan Lal Tripathi (Supra) and Sunil Tawari (Supra)
case is not the same as represented. In the case of Sunil Tawari
(Supra), the learned Court has made distinction from the view taken by
this court in the case of Dr. Ram Sharan Lal Tripathi (Supra). Further,
the petition under Article 227 Constitution of India against the order of
Additional Tehsildar is maintainable as it is a case of erroneous exercise
of jurisdiction by the learned Additional Tehsildar. As there was no
jurisdiction present to exercise of the powers present in provision under
Section 250 of the Code, 1959. Hence, the application is baseless which
may be dismissed.
9. Considered on the submissions. The prayer for referring the matter to a
Larger Bench does not appear fit to be entertained. Firstly, the view
expressed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. Ram Sharan Lal
Tripathi (supra) and the view expressed by this Court in the case of
Sunil Tawari (Supra) are clearly on this point as to whether the order of
Board of Revenue can be challenged under Article 227 Constitution of
India or not. There is no such issue present in this case. The issue
raised by the petitioner is only to this extent that whether the Additional
Tehsildar had any authority to issue a dispossession warrant under
Section 250 of Code, 1959. The present petition has been entertained
and interim order has been passed. Hence, I do not find any reason to
allow the application, therefore, the application praying for referring the
matter to a Larger Bench filed by the respondent No.3 is rejected.
10. List this case for final hearing along with Cont. No.754 of 2021 after the
normal functioning of the Courts is restored.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
Monika
