Chattisgarh High Court
Krishna Raj Singh (Dead) Through Lrs vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 September, 2025
Digitally
signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL Date:
2025.09.16
1
11:48:51
+0530
2025:CGHC:46496
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2358 of 2019
1 - Krishna Raj Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. (As Per Honble Court
Order Dated 02-04-2025).
1.1 - Smt. Rukhmani Devi Singh W/o Late Krishna Raj Singh,
Aged About 63 Years, R/o House No. 1, Ward No. 15, Pandariya,
Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.
1.2 - Sunil Raj S/o Late Krishna Raj Singh, Aged About 45
Years, R/o House No. 1, Ward No. 15, Pandariya, Tahsil
Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.
1.3 - Akash Singh Raj S/o Late Krishna Raj Singh, Aged About
34 Years, R/o House No. 1, Ward No. 15, Pandariya, Tahsil
Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.
1.4 - Amar Raj Singh S/o Late Krishna Raj Singh, Aged About
32 Years, R/o House No. 1, Ward No. 15, Pandariya, Tahsil
Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioners
versus
1-State Of Chhattisgarh Through Revenue And Natural Disaster,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur District
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 -Collector Kabirdham, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham),
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Kabirdham, District :
Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh.
4-Sub Divisional Officer (R) Pandariya, District : Kawardha
(Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh.
2
5-Assistant Director Department Of Fisheries, Office Of Collector
Kabirdham, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh.
6-Fishery Inspector Pandariya, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham),
Chhattisgarh.
7-Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Kamthi, Tahsil Pandariya,
District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh.
8-Secretary Gram Panchayat Kamthi, Tahsil Pandariya, District :
Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh.
9 - Jai Maa Chandrahasini Saw Sahayata Samuh Kamthi
Through Its President, Kamthi, Tahsil - Pandariya, District :
Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Ms. Anu Mishra, Adv. Holding the
brief of Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Adv.
For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment on Board
11/09/2025
1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking following
relief:-
10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased
to quash the impugned order dated 25.05.2019
(P/1) passed by respondent no. 6, impugned
resolution dated 11.06.2019 (P/2) passed by
respondent no. 7 & 8 being arbitrary and illegal.
10.2 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased
to direct the respondents to decide the
representations/objections dated 20.06.2019 (P/3)
looking to the facts of the case.
10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to impose heavy cost upon the respondents,
particularly upon the respondent no. 6 to 8.
10.4 This Hon'ble court may kindly be call for the
records for its kind perusal which relates to
petitioner's matter.
10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of
the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argues that the
forefather of the original petitioner was a rural Jamindar of
Pandariya District, Kabirdham (CG), and the subject ponds
situated in Village Kamthi, including Narsingh Pond and
other ponds, were part of the Jamindari property. She
contends that the petitioner inherited the property, including
the ponds, as evident from the record of rights of 1954. She
further contends that in 1973, a ceiling case was registered,
and part of the property, including the Narsingh Pond, was
merged with the State, but the Additional Collector,
Bilaspur, stayed the order on 05.09.1995. She submits that
the Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat have
passed a resolution to allot both ponds through auction for
pisciculture. However, she argues that the ponds are
exclusive property of the petitioners, and neither the Gram
Panchayat nor the Fishery Department has any right over it.
She prays for quashing the resolution and the letter dated
25.05.2019, issued by the Fishery Inspector.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Shubham Bajpayee submits that
since 1996, the ponds have been allotted to self-help groups
and other persons for pisciculture. He contends that the
petitioner has raised objections for the first time and filed
this petition in 2019. He also submits that the subject ponds
have been recorded as government land in the revenue
record, as per Annexure P/5 dated 13.12.1988. He argues
that the petitioner has no right over the ponds and,
therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the documents available on record.
5. The petitioners have claimed a right over the ponds on the
ground that they are their ancestral property. However, as
per Annexure P/5, the subject property is recorded as
government land. Considering the disputed facts, the
petitioner is permitted to make a representation before the
concerned Collector within a period of 30 days along with
relevant documents. The concerned Collector is directed to
decide the dispute, preferably within 90 days, strictly in
accordance with the law, after affording a due opportunity of
hearing to the interested parties.
6. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of at motion
stage.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Sourabh P.
