Sandeep Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4669 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                         NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                  WA No. 392 of 2022
Sandeep Sahu S/o Shri Ghanshyam Prasad Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o
Village Kansabail Tehsil Kansabail, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                  ---- Appellant
                                      Versus
1.    State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Revenue And
       Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District :
       Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2.    Collector Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
3.    Sub-Divisional Officer(Revenue) Dabhara, District : Janjgir-Champa,
       Chhattisgarh
4.    Tehsildar Dabhara, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
                                                             ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

22.07.2022 Heard Mr. Hariom Rai, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard

Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for

the respondents.

2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 21.06.2022 passed

by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.705 of 2022. The order

of the learned Single Judge reads as follows :

"1. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.03.2015

passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the

subsequent order dated 12.04.2015 passed by

the Tehsildar in Revenue Case No. 95/A-6/2014-

15 the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The instant writ petition is filed in January,

2022, thus apparently there is a delay of more

than 7 years in approaching the Writ Court for

claiming the relief that the petitioner seeks.

3. This Court has no hesitation in reaching to the

conclusion that the petition is highly belated and

no plausible explanation for the delay has been

given by the petitioner. Only because some

similar matters have been decided by the Writ

Court on an earlier occasion would not give rise

to a cause of action for the petitioner to challenge

the order of the authorities concerned, which was

passed more than 7 years back. The petitioner

has not been able to satisfactorily establish the

fact that he was not aware of the two orders,

firstly the order passed in the review proceedings

and subsequently the order passed by the

Tehsildar in the mutation proceedings.

4. Under the circumstances, the writ petition,

since it suffers from delay laches, stands

dismissed only on the ground of delay."

3. The case of the appellant in the writ petition was that he had

purchased land bearing part of Khasra No.370, admeasuring 0.10 Acre,

situated at village Basantpur, Tehsil Dabhara vide registered sale-deed

dated 17.12.2013 and subsequently, his name was also mutated in the

revenue records vide order dated 12.03.2014. However, subsequently,

respondent No.4, i.e., Tehsildar obtained permission for review from the

Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dabhara on 23.03.2015 and after

obtaining the permission, the Tehsildar reviewed the order on 12.04.2015,

as a result of which, the order of mutation was cancelled. It is in that

circumstance, the writ petition was filed challenging the orders dated

23.03.2015 and 12.04.2015.

4. The order of review passed by the Tehsildar dated 12.04.2015 goes to

show that notice was issued, but the appellant did not take part in the

proceeding. Reasons for cancellation of mutation order, as translated from

Hindi version, read as follows :

"According to the attached document in the case,

the suit property is agricultural land, which comes under

Saradeeh Barrage land acquisition region, which was

bought / sold by the non-applicant by making other small

pieces of suit property, which is located in village

Basantpur and its illegal mutation has been done for the

purpose of getting maximum profit. After the perusal of

registration register of mutation, it has been found that

regarding the mutation of the suit property, the claim

objection was not received by the then Tehsildar,

Dabhara by duly publishing the advertisement and neither

signature of seller / buyer has been taken in the register.

The date of mutation has also not been mentioned in the

register. In this way, the mutation process as provided

under Section 110 of Code has not been duly followed.

Therefore, based on the above reasons, the above

referred mutation in respect of the land situated in Village

Basantpur, Tehsil Dabhara, Khasra No.370, area 0.10 A,

is cancelled and it is ordered to rectify the revenue

records in the name of previous seller Bhuvneshwar S/o

Shiv Kumar, Seth Ram S/o Shiv Lal, Baratu S/o Het Ram,

etc. Accordingly, Halka Patwari shall rectify the records

and after its compliance, case be filed and consigned to

the record room."

5. In the writ petition, the persons in whose favour the land was restored

are not made parties. The writ petition came to be filed on 22.01.2022 after

seven years of passing of the aforesaid orders. The plea taken by the

appellant that in similar circumstance, the order passed in review was set

aside, did not find favour with the learned Single Judge and on the ground of

delay, the writ petition came to be dismissed.

6. There is no averment that the appellant was not aware of the said

orders and on the contrary, averment is made that there is no delay in filing

the petition.

7. In the order dated 02.09.2019 passed by this Court in WPC No. 2990

of 2019, on which reliance is placed by Mr. Rai, it is categorically stated that

principles of natural justice had been violated. In the instant case, having

regard to the contents of the order dated 12.04.2015, prima facie, it cannot

be said that there had been any violation of principles of natural justice.

8. Mr. Rai submits that because of Covid-19 pandemic from the year

2020, the petitioner could not take any steps. Assuming it to be so, there is

no explanation with regard to previous five years.

9. In view of the above discussion, we find no good ground to interfere

with the order of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the writ appeal is

dismissed. No cost.

                        Sd/-                                        Sd/-
            (Arup Kumar Goswami)                           (Parth Prateem Sahu)
                 Chief Justice                                    Judge

Anu