Chattisgarh High Court

Anjuman Islamia Committee Dhamtari vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors on 20 March, 2025

2025:CGHC:13427
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 1366 of 2012

1 - Anjuman Islamia Committee Dhamtari, Through Its President Sayeed
Asfaq Ali Hashmi, Age About 50 Years, S/o Late Sayeed Ustab Ali, R/o
Amapara, Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department,
D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - Commissioner Raipur Division, At Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3 - Collector Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
4- Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dhamtari District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Tehsildar Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Chhuni Lal Keshwani, ( Dead ) Through LRS-
(A) Injana Keshrwani Wd/o Late Chunni Lal Kesharwani
(B) Sunil Kumar Keshrwani S/o Chunni Lal Kesharwani,
(C) Kailash Kumar Kesharwani S/o Chunni Lal Kesharwani
All are R/o Ratnabandha Chowk, Beside of Gayyur Material Supplier,
Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)

                         For Petitioner           :     Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate.
                         For State                :     Shri Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate.
                         For Respondent No.6      :     Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate along with
                         (A) to 6(C)                    Shri Rakshit Tiwari, Advocates.

                                Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
                                           Order reserved on 04.10.2024
                                           Order delivered on 20.03.2025

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the

order dated 24.04.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner,

Raipur Division, Raipur in case No.280/A-20(3)/2011-12 "Chunni Lal

Keshwani Vs. Anjuman Islamiya, Dhamtari" whereby the appeal filed

by the original respondent No.6 Chunni Lal Keshwani was allowed and

the order dated 05.02.2009 passed by the Additional Collector,

Dhamtari was set aside and it was directed to remove encroachment

from the subject land.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is a registered society

registered under the provisions of Waqf Act, 1995. A lease was granted

on 01.10.1911 in favour of Anjuman Islamiya Committee, as the the

then was, for Idgah with respect to land admeasuring 2.60 Acres of

Khasra No.209 situated at village Dhamtari. Although, at that time, the

Halka Patwari was directed to mutate the name of petitioner in the

revenue record, but for one or other reasons, their name could not be

recorded till 1970. An application was filed by the petitioner on

21.06.1971 before the Tehsildar, Dhamtari for correction of revenue

records as the land of Khasra No.209 area 2.60 Acre was still recorded

as grass land. It is also mentioned in the order sheet dated 21.06.1971

that in case No.40-A/59/65-66 the Naib Tehsildar Dhamtari had

submitted his report on 16.11.1964 before the Additional Collector,

Raipur, for correction of revenue records and then on 17.05.1966 the

Additional Collector, Raipur had passed an order and diverted the land

of Khasra No.209 area 2.60 Acres as provided under Section 237 of

MP Land Revenue Code. Accordingly, the Nistar Patrak was also

directed to be corrected. It is also observed that in revenue appeal No.

354-A/37-62-63, order dated 04.07.1964, the Commissioner Raipur

has also considered the petitioner as the owner of the said land, but

the relevant revenue records could not been corrected and still

showing as grass land and in view of the orders passed by the revenue

courts, the case was referred to Sub Divisional Officer, Dhamtari (in

short, the SDO) for further instructions and confirmation of the earlier

orders. On 04.10.1972 the SDO Dhamtari has observed that the orders

have already been passed by the competent court and there is no

need for any further confirmation, the title of the petitioner has been

accepted by the authorities and in view thereof, necessary correction

be made in the revenue records and the matter was remitted back to

the Tehsildar, Dhamtari. Ultimately, on 31.03.1973 the Tehsildar

Dhamtari has passed its order that the concerned Patwari has

submitted his report dated 31.03.1973 that by the order dated

04.07.1964 passed by the Commissioner, Raipur, in Revenue Case

No.348/A-6/1962-63 and the order dated 20.05.1966 passed by the

Additional Collector, Raipur, the name of the petitioner has been

mutated in the revenue records and therefore the proceedings of

Revenue Case No.20/A-6/1969-70 was closed vide order dated

31.03.1973.

3. Since the lease granted to the petitioner was expired, he moved an

application for renewal of the lease before the Collector, Dhamtari

which was forwarded to Tehsildar for its report. On 26.10.2007 the

Tehsildar Dhamtari referred the earlier report dated 30.01.2006 and

forwarded the matter to the SDO Dhamtari for renewal of lease in

accordance with law. In turn, the SDO referred the matter to Collector,

Dhamtari, for further orders.

4. On 05.02.2009 the Additional Collector Dhamtari passed an order in

Revenue Case No.2/A-20(3)/2008-09 observing that the land of Khasra

No.209 is recorded in the name of petitioner society Anjuman Islamiya

Committee Dhamtari and concurring with the report submitted by the

SDO Dhamtari, he recommended for renewal of lease granted in

favour of the petitioner for a further period of 30 years, except 10000

sq. ft. of land out of Khasra No.209 plot No.6/3, as dispute with respect

to that part of land was pending before the State Govt. and and the

matter was again remitted to the SDO Dhamtari. On 10.02.2009 the

matter was again sent to Tehsildar Dhamtari for further proceeding.

5. On 24.07.2009 the Tehsildar Dhamtari again assessed the land

revenue and yearly rent of the land and got it deposited by the

petitioner through bank Challan and again referred the matter back to

Collector, Dhamtari. The matter was again remitted to Tehsildar for

further preparation of lease deed and spot map in accordance with law

vide its order dated 22.08.2009 passed by the Additional Collector,

Dhamtari. On 30.09.2009 after fulfilling the requisite instructions, the

Tehsildar Dhamtari again sent the case to Additional Collector through

SDO and vide order dated 14.10.2009 lease deed was approved and it

was issued in favour of the petitioner and proceedings of case was

closed.

6. The original respondent No.6/Chunni Lal Keshwani (since deceased)

filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner Raipur Division,

Raipur, against the order dated 05.02.2009 passed by the Additional

Collector, Dhamtari in Revenue Case No.2A-20(3)/2008-09 under

Section 44(2) of the MP/CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 read with

Clause 4(1) of Revenue Book Circular. In the appeal, the original

respondent No.6 Chunni Lal Keshwani claimed that he is in possession

of 11000 sq.ft. of the land of Khasra No.209 total area 2.60 Acres

(1.052 Hect.) which is of sheet No.6, Plot No.6/1 situated at Risaipara,

Dhamtari, PH No.16, Tehsil & District Dhamtari since 1972. In the said

Plot No.6/1, his uncle late Mela Ram was residing after constructing a

house and during his lifetime he left his house of Dhamtari and started

residing at Raipur and since then the original respondent No.6 Chunni

Lal Keshwani is in possession of the said house and after renovation of

the house he is residing there and operating his business thereon. In

the year, 1996 when he was fixing shutter in his shop, the present

petitioner raised objection and then dispute arose between them. He

also moved an application for renewal of lease which was registered as

Case No.4/20(3)/2005-06 before the Collector, Dhamtari. In the

application filed by the present petitioner for renewal of lease, on the

report submitted by the SDO, Dhamtari, it was again sent by the

Collector, Dhamtari to SDO on 19.09.2002 and 03.06.2005. The SDO

has not taken any action and then the Additional Collector, Dhamtari

has passed an order on 05.02.2009 and in pursuance thereof lease of

petitioner was renewed on 31.08.2009 without providing any

opportunity of hearing to respondent No.6/Chunni Lal Keshwani and

land of Khasra No.209 area 2.60 Acres includes the plot No.6/1 also

which is hold by him.

7. After hearing the parties, the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division,

Raipur, has passed its order on 24.04.2012 and held that without there

being any proper pleadings with respect to issuance of lease the order

has been passed by the Additional Collector, Dhamtari. The land of

Khasra No.209 area 2.60 Acres is recorded as grass land in Khasra

Panchshala of the year, 2009-10. The original lease deed has not been

filed by the parties and it has not been mentioned as to when lease

was granted in their favour and without document of original lease

deed the order of renewal of lease has been passed which is not in

accordance with law and the order dated 05.02.2009 passed by the

Additional Collector, Dhamtari in Case No.2/A-20(3) year 2008-09 was

set aside and directed the subordinate court to initiate the proceeding

for removal of encroachment from there which is under challenge in the

present petition.

8. The respondents No.1 to 5/State filed its reply and submitted that in

absence of original records pertaining to original lease produced by the

petitioner, his claim for holding a valid lease cannot be accepted and

the land of Khasra No.209 area 2.60 Acres is recorded as grass land in

Khasra Panchshala of the year, 2009-10. The Additional

Commissioner, Raipur, has rightly considered that the original lease

deed has not been produced and it is recorded as grass land.

Therefore, the appeal filed by Chunni Lal Keshwani was allowed and

set aside the order dated 05.02.2009 passed by the Additional

Collector, Raipur in Case No.2/A-20(3)/2008-09.

9. During pendency of petition, the original respondent No.6 died and his

legal representatives were substituted vide order dated 01.03.2019.

10. The respondent No.6 also filed its reply and submitted that there is no

document filed by the petitioner with respect to lease deed. He is in

possession over the land bearing Plot No.6/1 situated at Dhamtari PH

No.16, Tehsil & District Dhamtari since the lifetime of his predecessors.

In the year, 1996 when he tried to install shutter in his shop, the dispute

arose between him and the petitioner. The answering respondent had

also moved his application for renewal of lease with respect to land of

his possession of Khasra No.209 area 2.60 Acres and the petitioner

has also moved an application for renewal of lease. Vide order dated

05.02.2009 the Collector, Dhamtari, has ordered for renewal of lease

including the land of answering respondent i.e. Plot No.6/1.

Challenging the order dated 05.02.2009 he filed an appeal before the

Additional Commissioner, Raipur which was allowed on 24.04.2012

and the order dated 05.02.2009 passed by Additional Collector, Raipur

is set aside holding that subject land is recorded as grass land in the

revenue records of the year, 2009-10 and the petitioner has not filed

any lease deed in his favour. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for

any relief.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the Missal

Bandobast of the year, 1926-27, the land of Khasra No.209 area 2.12

Acre though was recorded as grass land in the name of Malik Makbuja

(Mus. Sudami Bai) but in its remark column "Idgah" is mentioned which

proves the fact that prior to 1926-27 there was an Idgah over the said

Khasra number. In the records of rights of the year, 1954, the land of

Khasra No.209 area 2.60 Acre is recorded as diverted land but the

name of its possession holder has not been mentioned. Though

original lease deed or order could not be filed by the petitioner as it

was quite old record and the parties could not be able to get the same

from the concerned revenue department, but from the report dated

16.11.1964 submitted by the Naib Tehsildar Dhamtari in Revenue Case

No.40A-59/65-66 it is clearly mentioned that the land of Khasra No.209

area 2.60 Acres was given by one Sheikh Aman under Waqf to

Anjuman Islamiya and it is being used as Idgah since then and

Anjuman Islamiya has requested for correction of Patwari records on

the basis of order passed in Revenue Case No.1/12-1 of 1910 by the

then Deputy Commissioner Raipur and recommended for correction of

Nistar Patrak and revenue records. From various orders passed by the

revenue authorities it is quite clear that the petitioner is entitled for

renewal of his lease. Merely non filing of original lease deed does not

dis-entitle the petitioner from valid possession of his land which is

continued since more than 100 years and various orders have been

passed considering possession as well as entitlement of the petitioner

over the land in question.

12. He would also submit that the petitioner was claiming correction of

records and mutation of their names in the revenue record of Khasra

No.209 since long, but due to inaction on the part of the revenue

authorities, the same could not be corrected. Vide order dated

31.03.1973 passed by Tehsildar, Dhamtari, the order for correction of

record was passed. Despite that, in the year 2009-10, the relevant

entries in the Khasra Panchshala reflects that the same is recorded as

grass land and only on the basis of which the Additional Commissioner,

Raipur, has passed the order ignoring the earlier orders passed by the

revenue authorities in favour of the petitioner to either mutate their

names in the revenue records or renewal of their lease. Further, it was

the case of respondent No.6 also before the Additional Commissioner

Raipur that the lease granted in favour of the petitioner is renewed in

which his land of Plot No.6/1 is also included. The petitioner is in

possession of land since more than 100 years and he is not an

encroacher over there. The document shows that he legally possessed

the land and there cannot be any removal of encroachment as ordered

by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur. Therefore, the impugned order

may be set aside and the petition may be allowed.

13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as respondent

No.6 opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner

and supported the impugned order passed by the Additional

Commissioner, Raipur.

14. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the

material produced in the writ petition.

15. The claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that a lease

was granted in his favour on 01.10.1911 by the then Deputy

Commissioner, Raipur in case No.1/12-1 of 1910, but no any order

granting lease in favour of petitioner in the said case was filed nor any

lease deed submitted by the petitioner. From perusal of report

submitted by the Naib Tehsildar, Dhamtari dated 16.11.1964 in

Revenue Case No.40A-59/65-66 it reflects in paragraph 1 of report that

the subject land of Khasra No.209 area 2.60 Acre was given by one

Sheikh Aman under the Waqf to Anjuman Islamiya and it is being used

as Idgah. The said report dated 16.11.1964 is relevant in the present

case which is reproduced hereinunder:

"1. Anjuman Islamiya through its president Shri Md. Abdul Shakoor of Dhamtari has requested for correction of Patwari records on the basis of orders passed in Revenue case No.1/12-1 of 1910 assessed by the then Dy. Commissioner Raipur. The land in question is S. No. 209, area 2.60 acres. It is stated that this S.No, was given by one Sheikh

Aman under Waqf to Anjuman Ishmiya and it is being used as Idgah since time.

2. Copy of the odors passed in Revenue case No.1/12-1 of 1910-11 of village Dhamtari has been filed. Copy of the order dated 9.10.11 by the D.C. on the report of the S.D.O, Dhamtari, dated 28.9.11 may be perused in the relevant case quoted above. In the said plot No. 218 area 7.90 acres has been ordered to be corrected, in the name of Anjuman Islamiya .....Later on the then Tahsildar made a recommendation for correction may only 2.12 Acres as Idgah since rest of the portion as reported to have been occupied by Mission School and Bungalow, but what happened to this reference was not known, it is not clear from the records filed now.

3. The ....... on record shows that the corresponding survey No.212/3 is now 209......the same shall be referred as 209 now. The Khasra reveals that S.No. 209 area 2.60 acres is recorded in grass and now under Idgah and some portion is .... petrol pump and under encroachment of one Jumman Khan.......

4. The President of Anjuman Islamiya filed copy of the appellate orders passed by the learned Commissioner, Raipur wherein it has been held that the area shown as for the Petrol Pump in Khasra belongs to the Anjuman Islamiya.

5. In the present record S. No.206 is having an area of 2.60 acres and it is under the Management of Anjuman Islamiya. Keeping in view the latest order of the Commissioner it is proposed that Khasra No.209, area 2.60 acres may be ordered to be recorded as Idgah under Anjuman Islamiya Dhamtari which was already ordered by the then D.C. in Revenue case referred above in para 1 of this report.

Nistar Patrak may also be ordered be corrected under Section 237 (5) of the MPLR Code 59.

Submitted to the Collector Raipur through the Sub Divisional Officer, Dhamtari.

Sd/-

Naib Tehsildar Dhamtari The.......of the Anjuman Islamiya wants to be heard before the full order is passed.

Sd/-

Naib Tehsildar I agree.

Sd/-

R.K. Tiwari SDO.

Order Report Seen. In view of the reasons recorded therein, permission to divert Kh. No.209 area 2.60 Acres is granted u/s 237(2) of MPLR Code.

2. The Nistar Patrak and other records be corrected accordingly.

Sd/-

Addl. Collector"

16. On the basis of the report submitted by the Naib Tehsildar dated

16.11.1964, the Additional Collector, Raipur, passed its order on

23.05.1966 and found that the various judgments establishes the

ownership of Anjuman Islamiya over the land of Khasra No. 209 which

has been admitted by the other persons also including Shri Pujari

Brothers and Smt. Paraniya Bai. It was also found by the Additional

Collector that Anjuman Islamiya was agreed to pay the assessment of

Khasra No.209 area 2.70 Acres whose details have been given in the

report and held that the petitioner Anjuman Islamiya is liable for

assessment of land revenue under Section 60 of the MP Land

Revenue Code.

17. The said order dated 23.05.1966 was challenged by the petitioner

before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur by filing an appeal

No.302-A-2/1965-66 which was decided on 16.05.1967 and the appeal

filed by the petitioner was dismissed directing Additional Collector to

recover the arrears of assessment from the petitioner.

18. The petitioner has also filed an application before the Tehsildar

Dhamtari for mutation of his name as per the order dated 12.05.1966

passed in Case No.40-A59-65-66 by the Additional Collector, Dhamtari

and ultimately vide order dated 31.03.1973 the Tehsildar, Dhamtari has

passed an order that since the land of Khasra No.209 area 2.07 Acres

had already been recorded in the name of the petitioner by the order

passed by the Deputy Commissioner Raipur and the same has been

executed and therefore no further action is required in the case and the

proceeding of revenue case No.20A-6/69-70 was closed. Although

Kistan Kitab has been issued in faovur of the petitioner, but in the

factual scenario where the claim of petitioner itself is that he is the

lease holder of the land of Khasra No.209, issuance of Kisan Kitab, a

document of their ownership, itself is doubtful.

19. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner is claiming the

land of Khasra No.209 area 2.60 Acres based on the order dated

01.10.1911 by which grant of lease is claimed, but neither the order

dated 01.10.1911 nor any lease deed has been filed by the petitioner.

In the report dated 16.11.1964 submitted by the Naib Tehsildar in

Revenue Case No. 40-A59/65-66 before the Collector, Raipur through

SDO Dhamtari reflects that the said land of Khasra No.209 area 2.60

Acres of village Dhamtari was given by one Sheikh Aman under Waqf

to Anjuman Islamiya and it is being used as Idgah since that time. The

lease was also renewed from time to time and various applications for

mutation of their names in the revenue records have been filed by the

petitioner which has been ordered by the competent revenue authority

and vide order dated 04.10.1972 the SDO Dhamtari has also observed

in its order that various orders have been passed in favour of the

petitioner by the revenue courts which is not required to reconsider and

the ownership over the land in question of the petitioner has been

accepted by the authorities and therefore he also recommended for

mutation of the name of petitioner in the revenue records. The order

dated 12.05.1966 passed in Revenue Case No. 40-A59-65-66 by the

Additional Collector, Raipur has not been produced by the parties

which is the basis of claim of the petitioner.

20. Considering the various instances of the applications to various

revenue courts and reports submitted by the revenue authorities and

further considering the orders passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Additional

Collector, Dhamtari and also the Commissioner, Raipur Division,

Raipur, the impugned order dated 24.04.2012 passed by the Additional

Commissioner, Raipur in Revenue Appeal Case No.280/A-20(3)/2011-

12, setting aside the order dated 05.02.2009 passed by the Additional

Collector, Dhamtari, appears to be erroneous. The said order was

passed only on the ground that petitioner failed to submit the original

lease deed ignoring various orders of revenue authoirties. The

Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, should have

considered the various orders and reports submitted by the revenue

authorities. By the order dated 05.02.2009 the Additional Collector,

Dhamtari recommended for renewal of lease for a further period of 30

years in favour of petitioner, except 10000 sq.ft. of disputed land of

Khasra No.209, Plot No.6/3 after considering the documents submitted

in case No.2/A-20(3)/2008-09.

21. In view of the aforesaid disputed question of facts, the matter needs

reconsideration by the Collector, Dhamtari in view of the earlier orders

passed by the revenue authorities and reports submitted in revenue

cases with respect to the rival claims of the respective parties.

Consequently, the order dated 24.04.2012 passed by the Additional

Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur in Revenue Appeal Case

No.280/A-20(3)/2011-12 (Annexure P/6) is hereby set aside. The

matter is remitted back to Collector Dhamtari to reconsider the matter

afresh keeping in view the revenue records available with the

department with respect to claim of the parties and to pass a fresh

order in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity of

hearing to concerned parties.

22. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed.

23. The interim order dated 27.07.2012 passed in present writ petition shall

remain in operation for a further period of three months from today.

Thereafter, the parties would be at liberty to make suitable application

before the Collector, Dhamtari to grant/extend the interim order, if so

advised. In the eventuality of filing such application, the Collector,

Dhamtari shall decide the same in accordance with law.

Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

inder