[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Gajendra Das vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 April, 2026
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
Digitally
signed by
YOGESH
YOGESH TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
2026.04.09
18:07:09
+0530
1/6
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1571 of 2020
GAJENDRA DAS versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
WPC/1569/2020
Order Sheet
09.04.2026 Mr. Ankit Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners in both
the writ petitions.
Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Deputy Advocate General assisted
by Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners, being successors of erstwhile Kotwars, have
preferred the present writ petitions seeking grant of
Bhumiswami rights over the land in question, which was
originally granted to their forefathers as service land by the
ex-proprietors/Zamindars prior to the year 1950 for rendering
2/6
services to the village community. It is contended that in view
of the provisions contained in Section 45(3) of the M.P.
Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated
Lands) Act, 1950, such persons, who were holding land on
favourable terms for services rendered, stood declared as
occupancy tenants from the date of vesting, and by virtue of
Section 190 of the M.P./C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, the
rights of Bhumiswami would subsequently accrue to them.
Learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment
rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Vijay Das
Manikpuri and others v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 537/1995,
decided on 18.08.2005), wherein, after considering the
earlier decisions including Gaurishankar Choubey v.
Baktha, 1985 RN 228, and Jiwanlal v. Board of Revenue,
1961 MPLJ (SN) 78, it has been held that persons in
continuous possession of such service land as Kotwars at the
time of vesting would be treated as occupancy tenants and
would be entitled to claim Bhumiswami rights, subject to
verification of factual aspects by the competent revenue
authority. It is submitted that in light of the settled legal
3/6
position, the petitioners are entitled to be considered for grant
of Bhumiswami rights in accordance with law.
On the other hand, learned State counsel, placing
strong reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Division
Bench of this Court in Gambhir Das Panika v. Chairman,
Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh & Others, W.P.(C) No.
7048 of 2007 (along with connected matters), decided on
30.11.2018
, submits that the issue is no longer res integra
and stands conclusively settled against the petitioners. It is
contended that the said Division Bench, after an elaborate
consideration of the provisions of the M.P. Abolition of
Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act,
1950, the M.P./C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, and earlier
precedents including Gaurishankar Choubey v. Baktha,
1985 RN 228, and Kanak Chandra Dutta v. State of
Assam, AIR 1967 SC 884, has categorically held that land
granted to a Kotwar as service land by the erstwhile
malguzar/proprietor does not confer proprietary rights, and
upon vesting, such land stands vested in the State free from
all encumbrances.
It has further been held that a Kotwar holding such
service land cannot, by virtue of such possession, claim the
status of Bhumidhari or Bhumiswami, nor can his successors
acquire such rights in absence of any statutory conferment.
Learned State counsel further submits that the Division Bench
has also declared earlier judgments taking a contrary view,
namely Chhabil Das v. State of Chhattisgarh, Tikaram v.
State of Chhattisgarh and Lalla Singh Chouhan v. State
of Chhattisgarh, as per incuriam and not laying down the
correct law. Reliance is also placed on State of M.P. v.
Yakinuddin, AIR 1962 SC 1916; Madhya Pradesh Rural
Road Development Authority v. L.G. Chaudhary
Engineers & Contractors, (2012) 3 SCC 495; Bengal
Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661;
State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., (1991) 4
SCC 139; and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam
Kaur, (1989) 1 SCC 101, to buttress the submission
regarding binding precedent and the doctrine of per incuriam.
It is thus urged that the petitioners, being successors of ex-
Kotwars, cannot claim Bhumiswami rights over the land in
question under the provisions of the C.G. Land Revenue
Code, 1959 or any other applicable law, and the writ petitions
deserve to be dismissed.
In view of the apparent conflict between the judgments
rendered by two Division Benches of this Court on the issue
involved in the present case, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the matter requires authoritative determination so
as to ensure clarity and consistency in the legal position. The
petitioners claim entitlement to Bhumiswami rights on the
strength of earlier Division Bench decisions, whereas the
State places reliance upon a subsequent Division Bench
judgment taking a contrary view. As such, the existence of
these divergent judicial pronouncements on the same
question of law necessitates reference to a Full Bench.
Accordingly, it is deemed appropriate to refer the matter
to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for passing an appropriate
direction to consider and decide the following substantial
question of law:
"Whether, in light of the conflicting Division
Bench judgments, service land granted to a
Kotwar for rendering services prior to the
abolition of proprietary rights can be
recognized and converted into Bhumiswami
rights in favour of such Kotwar or his
successors under the provisions of the
M.P./C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the
M.P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates,
Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950?"
List the matter accordingly, as may be directed by
Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Yogesh
