Chattisgarh High Court
Vishwash Singh Rajput vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 October, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 13 of 2022
Vishwash Singh Rajput S/o Shri Laxman Singh Rajput Aged
About 41 Years R/o Bandhamuda Housing Board Colony,
House No. 23, Gaurella Pendra Road, District Gaurella
Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And
Disaster Management, Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh.
2. Collector District Gaurella Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh.
3. Sub Divisional Magistrate (Revenue) Pendra Road, District
Gaurella Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh.
4. Tahsildar Tehsil Pendra Road, District Gaurella Pendra
Marwahi Chhattisgarh.
5. Mission Higher Secondary School Pendra Road, Tehsil
Pendra Road, District Gaurella Pendra Marwahi
Chhattisgarh. Through The Principal, Mission Higher
Secondary School, Pendra Road, Tehsil Pendra Road,
District Gaurella Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant: Shri Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate
For State/Respondents No.1 to 4: Smt. Astha Shukla, G.A.
For Respondent No.5: Shri Manish Nigam, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice &
Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Judge
Judgment/Order On Board
Per Sanjay Agrawal, J
19.10.2022
This appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner under
Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division
Bench) Act, 2006 questioning the legality and propriety of the order
dated 10.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)
No.5011 of 2021, whereby, the petition filed by the writ petitioner
questioning the order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the concerned
Tehsildar has been dismissed. The parties to this appeal shall be
referred hereinafter as per their description before the learned
Single Judge.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an application
enumerated under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue
Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code, 1959') has been
made by Respondent No.5-Mission Higher Secondary School,
Pendra Road by submitting, inter alia, that the property in question
as described in the said application was obtained by the writ
petitioner by dispossessing the said institution illegally. The said
application seeking restoration of its possession was registered as
Revenue Case No.-202109280400040/A-70/2020-21. In the said
matter, the writ petitioner appeared and moved an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 alleging
therein that since he has occupied the alleged land as a tenant of
the said institution, therefore, the application as framed by
Respondent No.5 is not maintainable and deserves to be
dismissed.
3. The aforesaid objection was opposed by Respondent No.5
and while entertaining the said issue, it was observed by the
concerned revenue authority that since no documentary evidence
in this regard like rent agreement or any kind of deed was
produced, therefore, it cannot be said that he was put in
possession thereof as such, and accordingly arrived at a
conclusion that the writ petitioner is in illegal possession of the
alleged land. In consequence, directed for restoration of the
possession of the suit land to Respondent No.5.
4. Being aggrieved with the said order, a petition was filed
before the learned Single Judge wherein, it was observed that
since the alternative remedy is provided for questioning the said
order under the Code, 1959, therefore, the petition is held to be not
maintainable and accordingly, it was dismissed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that
since he came in possession over the suit land as tenant of the
said institution, therefore, the concerned revenue authority has no
power to entertain the said application as filed under Section 250 of
the Code, 1959, however, without considering the said fact in its
proper manner, the same has been rejected. Further contention of
him is that since the alleged order dated 22.11.2021 was passed by
the said revenue authority even without holding any enquiry,
therefore, it is apparently an illegal order of his dispossession. It is,
therefore, contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have
reversed the same instead of holding the petition to be not
maintainable.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents have opposed the same.
7. Having considered the aforesaid contentions of the parties,
considering further the allegation made by Respondent No.5 in its
application under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 and that by
considering the statutory remedy as provided under Section 44 of
the Code, 1959 for assailing the order passed by the concerned
revenue authority, we, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the
order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge so as to call
for any interference in this appeal. It is, however, observed herein
that if any appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner before the
concerned appellate authority as required under Section 44 of the
Code, 1959 within a period of 10 days from today along with an
application for its condonation of delay, then the same shall be
considered by the said appellate authority in accordance with law.
Since the matter pertains to eviction of the petitioner, and since the
petitioner was pursuing remedy before this Court, we direct that for
this limited period of 10 days, the writ petitioner shall not be
dispossessed from the suit land in pursuance of the order dated
22.11.2021 passed by the Tehsildar, Pendra Road, District
Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi. After the appeal is preferred as
observed hereinabove, the Appellate Authority will regulate the
proceedings and pass such order(s) as may be considered
appropriate.
8. With the aforesaid observation, this appeal is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Sanjay Agrawal)
Chief Justice Judge
Nikita
