Chattisgarh High Court
Sanjay Kumar Nimani vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 June, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:28069
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 446 of 2025
1 - Sanjay Kumar Nimani S/o Shri Dharam Chand Nimani Aged About 59
Years R/o Flat No.-401, Rajat Centrum, Bhatagaon, District - Raipur
(C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of Revenue
And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur,
District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Commissioner District - Durg (C.G.)
3 - Collector District - Durg (C.G.)
4 - Sub Divisional Officer Patan, District - Durg (C.G.)
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate along with
Mr. Sachin Nidhi, and Mr. Anjan Mishra, Advocates
For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
26.06.2025
1. With regard to the default pointed out by the Registry, Mr. Sharma,
learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit
that in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench
in the matter of Manoranjan Jaiswal Vs. M/s. Krishna Builders
and another, Writ Appeal No.423 of 2021 decided on
24.07.2023, the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is maintainable against an order passed by the
Commissioner.
2. Taking into consideration the submissions made by Mr. Sharma
and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the matter
of Manoranjan Jaiswal (supra), the office objection is hereby
ignored.
3. Heard on admission.
4. The petitioner has filed this petition seeing the following relief(s):-
"i. To kindly call for entire records with respect to case
number 348/ब-121/2023-2024 from respondent No.2.
ii. To kindly quash/set aside the order dated 24.04
2025 in case number 348/ब-121/2023-2024
(ANNEXURE P/6)
iii. To kindly quash order dated 11.12.2019
(ANNEXURE-P/3) which has already been set aside
in Vasundhara Ayurvedic Anusandhan Kendra Private
Ltd Company Vs State Of Chhattisgarh in Case No.
50/ब-121/2023-2024 by the respondent no. 2.
iv. To kindly direct the respondent authorities to enter
the name of petitioner in revenue records.
V. To kindly pass any other order which the Hon'ble
court deems fit in the larger interest of justice."
5. Mr. Sharma, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioner would submit that the petitioner purchased Survey
Nos.781, 782, 785 & 787 situated at Village Mahuda, Patwari
Circle No.17, Tehsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) through the
registered sale deeds dated 05.12.2013. He would further submit
that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Patan received a
complaint from the Economic Offence Wing of the State of
Chhattisgarh against one Pankaj Lahoti, wherein, the allegations
were made with regard to irregular purchase of Government lands.
The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) issued show cause notices
to villagers as well as Pankaj Lahoti and the petitioner. The
concerned Collector without affording any opportunity of hearing,
canceled the sale deeds executed in favour of villagers, Pankaj
Lahoti and the petitioner too. Mr. Sharma, the learned Senior
Advocate would further argue that the petitioner preferred an
appeal against the said order passed by the Collector dated
11.12.2019 before the Divisional Commissioner and the concerned
Commissioner vide order dated 24.04.2025 directed the petitioner
to implead Economic Offence Wing Raipur as a party respondent.
Mr. Sharma, the learned Senior Advocate would also argue that
the appeal preferred by one of the aggrieved persons was allowed
by the Commissioner, Durg Division vide order dated 12.12.2023
in Case No.50/B/121/2023-24. It is also contended that the State
through the Collector is already party to the proceedings and the
relevant documents may be placed before the Commissioner by
the Collector or its representative. He would pray to set aside the
order passed by the Commissioner dated 24.04.2025.
6. On the other hand, Ms. Shukla, the learned Deputy Government
Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions
made by Mr. Sharma. Ms. Shukla would submit that on the
complaint of the Economic Offence Wing, Raipur, proceedings
were initiated against the petitioner and other villagers by the Sub
Divisional Officer (Revenue) Patan. She would further submit that
after affording sufficient opportunity, the concerned Collector
canceled the sale deeds executed in favour of villagers, Pankaj
Lahoti and the petitioner. She would also submit that the Economic
Offence Wing, Raipur is a necessary party in the matter, therefore,
the Commissioner vide order dated 24.04.2025 has directed the
petitioner to implead it as a party respondent. She would argue
that impleading Economic Offence Wing as a party respondent
would not affect the merits of the case. She would lastly submit
that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
documents placed on the record.
8. The petitioner purchased Survey Nos.781, 782, 785 & 787 situated
at Village Mahuda, Patwari Circle No.17, Tehsil Patan, District
Durg (C.G.) through registered sale deeds dated 05.12.2013. A
show cause notice was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer
(Revenue) to the petitioner but the concerned Collector without
affording any opportunity of hearing canceled the sale deeds
executed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an
appeal before the Divisional Commissioner against the said order.
The Commissioner vide order dated 24.04.2025 directed the
petitioner to implead the Economic Offence Wing, whereas the
State of Chhattisgarh through Collector is already impleaded as a
party respondent.
9. An appeal was preferred by one Vasundhara Ayurvedic
Anusandhan Kendra Private Ltd. bearing Case No.50/B-121/2023-
24 where proceedings were initiated on the complaint of Economic
Offence Wing and that appeal was allowed by the concerned
Commissioner vide order dated 12.12.2023. In that appeal, no
direction was issued to implead the Economic Offence Wing as a
party respondent.
10.For the sake of argument, if there is a complaint or material
against the petitioner, the State of Chhattisgarh or the Collector or
its representative may place those documents before the
concerned Commissioner and the Appellate Court may consider
those documents while passing the final order.
11.Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the order
passed by the Commissioner is hereby set aside and the
concerned Commissioner is directed to decide the pending appeal
expeditiously. The State would be at liberty to place relevant
documents before the concerned Commissioner, if so advised.
12.In view of the above, the present petition is allowed to the extent
indicated herein above.
sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha
