x/ @ (fem wig? mm y //Bharat Saw Mill, Registered Of£ice at Balod, Dist. Durg {c.G.) Thrcuqh its Partner Shri Akhairam Patel, SIG. Shivqan Bhai Patel, Aged about 48 years, R/O. Ward NO. 10, Balod, District Durg (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through it$ Secretary, Degartment 0f Forest, Maetralaya,D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (C.G) Divl. Ferest Officer, Durq Division, Durg(C.G.} Biswas Kumar Yadav, S/o. Late $hri Durga Prasad Yadav, Smt. Hemlata Yadav, W/o. Late Shri Durga Prasad Yadav, Smt. Damayanti, W/o. Shri §hananjay Kumar Yadav, //Respondents No. 3 to 5 R/o. Jawahargara, Balod, District Durg (C.G.) Krishna Kumar, S/o. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, Shiv Kumar, S/o. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, Raj Kumar, , S/o. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, Smt. Padma, I D/o. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, IN THE HIGH COURE OF JUDICAIURE $3 BILASPUR (C.G.) mm PETITION no. 648 /2005 Smt. Shail Bai, D/Q. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, //10. * Helen Bai, 570;‘Shri fshwar Singh Thakur, //12. Smt. Manju, D/o. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, ,/13. Sm: Rama, t D/o. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, //14. Smt. Ratna, D/o. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, //15. Shakuntala alia$ Bela, D/O. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, /l6. Sanju, S ingh / S/o. Shri Ishwar Thakur, /7. Smt. Urmila, W/o. Late Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, K/Respondents No. 6 to 17 R/o. Parras, Ward No. 1, Balod, Tahsil Balod, District Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION mm ARTICLE 2261227 OF Tm CONSTITUTION OF IImIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT m m NATURE OF CERTIORARI MAWS PROHIBITION m FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITSI ORDER OR 0mm; DIRECTION OR DIRECTIGNS 1 XI-HC»22 WW WW WWEH 2Q-S-20D5 Mrs. Fouzia Mirza. counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer f9r the State/respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Santosh Yadu, counsel for respondents No.3 to 5. As the other writ petitions nameiy‘ W.P.No.647/2005 (Laxmi Vijay Saw Mill vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others); W.P.No,648/2005 (Bharat Saw Mill vs. State of Chhattisgarh and othero); and WPNo649/2005 (Ramanl Timber Mart vs. State of Chhattisgarh ani others) are similar to this writ petition (W.P‘No.820/2005 Patel Saw Mill vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), involving same question of law‘ therefore, all the four writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of convenience, facts of W.P.No.620/2005 are being mentioned herewith. The case of the petitioner is that partner of the petitioner Saw Mill is in possession of the land bearing Khzsra Nos.606,"l & 606/2. rakba MOO/2.?2 acres of land at Patwari Halka Nol5fl. Tehsil: Balod. District; Durg, since 1969i when the petitioner Saw Mill was set up and a residential house on the land in question has aiso been constructed. The said land was belonging to Late lshwar Singh who authorized the petitioner to establish and operate their Saw Mill, and he used to get consideratiow in returnt Since 1969, the petitioner Saw Mill is in peaceful possession of the aforesaid land and the Saw Miil is in operation since then, and that has been set up after incurring considerable expenses. The revenue record sh ws that the land in question was in the name of landowner Late lshwar Sin h which is evident from Annexure P-i i it further shows the existence of the pptitioner Saw Mill. On the death of ishwar Singh the land was mutated in the heme of legal heirs: which is evidentjrom l $11,?SI. 0.9g: (§§i13.q€f} i § ,2? $a1imaln‘w 317w ET @331 3&1 311cm gaQw: . W 21W mix: l ‘ %z Map Form 8-1 Annexure P-2. lnitiali;/ iicence for setting up and running of Saw é Mill was granted in the year 1969 énd thereafter, continuously the !icence is being renewed. Copies of licencg, is Annexure P-3. The petitioner was registered under Section 11 of the qhhauisgarh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyami 1969. and the registration certification is Annexure P-4. The legal heirs of Late ishwar Singh filed ap iication dated 11-9-2001 (Annexure P-5) E before the Chief Municipal Officer, . iunicipai Council, Baiod, to the effect that E the tax shouid be collect from the person who are in possession. Since then, they are paying all the property tax tequired by the Municipal Council, Balod, and no tax is due against them. Respondents No.3 to 5 all of a sudden applied for mutation of the aforesaid land initheir names before the Tehsildar. Baiod and the Tehsildar mutated the land in their names without information the ipetitioner. which was challenged before the Upper Collectori Durg, who 2 dismissed the appeai. Therefore, the petitioner moved the Revenue Board V before which the matter is pending for consideration For the year 2005, the petitioner has already deposited the’fees amount :Rs.501i— on 16-11—2004 for renewal of licence. Copy is Annexure P-8. Respondents No.3 to 5 filed an appiication before respondent No.2 requesting ;therein not to renew the licence of the petitioner Saw Mill, Thereafter, I respondent No.2 passed order dated 24-1-2005 (Annexure P40) directing the 3 petitioner to transferthe Saw Mill toi another place within 15 days. But the question of title of land is still pending before the Revenue Board. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for quashment of order dated 24-1-2005 Annexure P- ; 10 and for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to renew ithe licence of the petitioner, l Kl- Hi -~-78 petitioner Saw Mill is registered u der Section 11 of the Adhiniyam. 1969, and iicence is being continuously r newed. The said iand was taken by the petitioner from owner of the land te lshwar Singhr Therefore. merely raising dispute regarding land by respo dents No.3 to 5, respondent No.2 was not entitled to direct the petitioner to hift the Saw Mili from the existing place and also to refuse the renewal of lice e. She further argued that even the licence fee for the year 2005 has alread been deposited by the petitioner. Learned counsel placed reliance on the ju gment of Gauhati High Court in the matter of Mls. Guru Nanak Saw Mill vs. tate of Assam and others reported in AIR 1988 Gauhati 28. a mam WWW WW §wW W m 912$ i ‘ 3 K $ aifcmm Return has been filed on bahalf of respondents No.1 & 2 in which it has not been disputed thai the petitio fr is registeredW under Section 11 of the Chhattisgarh Van Upaj (Vya r Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969. It has also been admitted that the petitioner w Mitl is running under the licence issued by respondent No2 and that is bein renewed from time to time‘ However. it has been mentioned in para 11 of the eturn that there is a dispute in respect of the ,,‘1"\ land on which the Saw Mill is e 'sting, therefore, respondent No2 asked the petitioner to shift the Saw Miil to ny other undisputed land and his licence wiil be renewed. lt is not in public i erest to renew the licence, so the impugned notice was given in accordance ‘th Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Kastha Chiran i (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam. 1984 wit a bonande intention not to aliow the Saw Milt to run on any disputed iandi i have heard learned couns Ifor the parties. Learned counsei for the p titioners argued that the petitioner Saw Miii was established and operating ince 1969 at the disputed piace and the '— XI—HCvZ2 Cm the other hand, learned‘Panel Lawyer argued that since respondents No.3 to 5 have raised dispute rega rding the land where the Saw MiJl is existing, that is why respondent No.2 askedlthe petitioner to shift the Saw Mill. Learned] counsel for respondents No.3 to 5 argued that respondents No.3 to 5 have become owner§ of the land in question on the basis of reiinquishment deed issued by Late ishwar Singh on 53-1974. in View of the above facts; the question which arises for determination before this Court is whether on aiocount of the dispute raised by respondents No.3 to 5 in respect of the iand in §question, respondent No.2 is entitled to direct the petitioner to shift the Saw Mill from the existing place and also to refuse renewal of the licence. lt has no I been disputed that the petitioner Saw Mill is operating at the iand in questionésince 1969 and the petitioner Saw Mill has been registered under Section it of the Adhiniyam, 1869, lt is also not disputed that the petitioner Saw Mill licence is being renewed year to year since 1969. The legal heirs of Late lslitwar Sing‘n on being asked by the Municipal Council to pay the tax moved arti application Annexure P—5 before the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Counfcii, Baiod to collect the municipal tax from the persons who are in possessionéof the land in question. Since then the petitioner is reguiarly pay the munipipai tax. The claim .raiseo‘ by respdndents No.3. to 5 is that they have become owners of the land in question on; account of execution of relinquishment deed by Late lshwar Singh in the year 1974. Therefore, even if that document (relinquishment deed) for the argtiment sake is said to be executed in favour of respondents No.3 to 5‘ but theE petitioner is in possession of the iand in question much before that and trie Saw Mill was already established and was operating before 19M with the coraisent and permission of original land lord. and XI-HCQZ WWEI‘WW %31%u3n%$ the petitioner is in peaceful possession since then. Therefore, mereiy by raising respondent No.2 is not legaiiy authorized to iiH from the existing piece and also to refuse Respondents No.3 to 5, if they want to avail any legal remedy whichever is available to them under the law. they are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for appropriate relief as they are entitled under the law. Without f0 No.3 to 5 are not entitled to evic assistance and help of respondent to enforce the provisions of the Adhiniyam. 1984, and the Chhattisgarh Kashtha Chiran (Viniyaman) Niyam, aute between the parties. For this View l am hati High Court in the matter of M/s. Guru n Bench of the Gauhati High Court in simiiar t “pendency of a civil suit about iease in i situated could not be a sufficient ground to sf that case were that the owner of the Saw \ predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.5 setting up and running a saw mill, and in s set up and was running. The Divisional Nowgong asked the petitioner to submit whereupon the mill was situated When the a the documents then he ordered that the lot renewed. The said action was taken bv a instance of the petitioner‘s landlord. On question of subsistence of the lease should l i dispute by respondents No.3 to 5, ask the petitioner to shift the Saw N renewal of licence on that ground. lowing the due process of law respondents t the petitioner in such a manner with the No.2, whose duty under the relevant law is Chhattisgarh Kashtha Chiran Winiyaman) 1984. and not to involve in the dist formed by the decision of the GaL Nanak (supra), in which the Divisic facts and circumstances held tha respect of land on which saw mill i: refuse renewal of license”. Facts c Mill took the land on lease from the to 11 in 1966 for the purpose of pursuance to that the Saw Mill we Forest Officer. Nowgong Division, document regarding the plot of land petitioner was not able to producr petitioner saw Mill licence would r the Divisional Forest Officer at the those facts, the Court held that the X1—HC—22 3a W, WE, W mm mm WWWIEWW mm mmmm __é k é;axf%mn%¥1 be considered cnly insofar as if was necessary for the purpose of continuation of possession of the pei‘itfoner in re specf of the land whereupon the mill was situated. In deciding rhe dispute between the /and and the tenanf in respect of fhe lease the Forest Officials should in no way act in aid of the landlord as suc it is further held that “the pehdency of the civil suit does nof ipso facfo I” ferminate fhe lease. Wheiher the lease was terminated or not would be decided by the Civil Court and unless that is done the ofticer, who granted the Licence on the basis of the lease of the land, cannot reasonably refuse to renew the licence on the ground of mere pendency of the dispute”. Similarly, in the present caae aiso ti“ the dispute was raised by iespondents No.3 to 5 the petitioner was in peacetui possession and. the Saw Miii was running without any objecton. The Saw Mii was set uo with the consent and agreement of originai ia iord Late lshwar Singhi The petitioner is reguiariy paying tax to the municipai' and his licence is also being renewed -t egularly from year to yearv Theref e, unless respondents No.3 to 5 obtain r . h rders regarding eviction of the petiti ner from a competent Court or authority, espondent No.2 is not entitled to dir t the petitioner to shift the Saw Miii from he existing place and he cannot als refuse renewai of licence so tong as the aw Mill is existing there and so long s the petitioner § abide by the conditions of the licence and other iegai provisio s of the Adhiniyam, 1969, and the Ruies iade under the Adhiniyam. 1984. . e duty of respondent No.2 is to ensure O she r4 .1 rn J ampiiance of the Chhattisgarh Kasht a Chiran {Viniyamam Adhiniyam. 1984, 1d the Rules made underthe Adhiniy m, 1984 The facts of W.P.No.647,’2005 re Mn similar and this Saw Mill is also existing on the same Khasra on t 'e adjoining land since 1960. Their case is also that they took the land in questi ‘ from Late lshwar Singh. ni also‘existing since 1964 on the sa estabiished after taking the land from Le Facts of W.P.No.649/2005 are a the iand bearing same Khasra and ti“ since 1977i in a“ the above three cases als the possession of the petitioners. Therefore in view of the abo aiiowed. The orders directing the peti 2005 are quashed and respondent i iicence of the petitioners on its own dispute regarding the land in question No.3to 5. Parties are emitted for certmed copy of this order. me Khasra. This Saw Mi” was also ate lshwar Singh. lso same and this Mill is also existing on eir case is also that the Mill is working ro respondents No.3 to 5 have objected ve, the petitions of the petitioners are tioners to shift the Saw Mill dated 24-1- Jo.2 is directed to consider renewal of merits without taking into account the between the petitioners and respondents Sd/— L.C.BHADOO Judge @ mm w ?6. m zoo S m W (mam mmm am man—WE? __ 7 k WW @W a: aim m W.P.No.648/2005 is also basec on the same facis and this Saw Mil! is