ti]::>,-<i''?.l:' ^^ ";'..;^,;;.«>t(!:,0; &:KV' i«*3!Bali !1!U HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P.SHARMA, J.) Writ Petition No.1288 of 1985 Smt.Qeeta Devi (dead) by her l^ai representatives and others Vs. Board of Revenue and others POST FOR PRQNOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER ON 11/8/2011 Sd/- T.P. Sharma %8i^i —!? HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No.1288 of 1995 Petjttoners Respondents 1. Smt.Geeta Devi 1B 1C 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Died 1A Smt.Lalita Devi, D/o. CWronji Lal, aged about 50 years, R/o. Behlnd Suvidha Lodge, Bilaspur (C.G.) Smt.Savita Devi, D/o. Chironji lal, aged about 48 years, R/o. Amdi Nagar, Bhilai, Dlstrtct Durg (C.G.). Smt.Lata Devi, D/o. Chironjl Lal, aged about 45 years, Wo. amtarai Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) Falitlal, aged about 45 years, Jeetlal, aged about 31 years, Naveetlal, aged about 29 years, All R/o. Near Old Bus Stand, Behind Suvidha Lodge, Bllaspur (C.G.) Versus Board of Revenue, State Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (C.G.) of The Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Dh/ision, Bilaspur (C.G.) The Additionai Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) The S.D.O. Cum Competent OITicer, Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Revenue Department, D.K.S. Raipur (C.G.) 0/Vrit Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constttution of india) Mr.Vishnu Koshta, counsel for the petitionere. Mr.Sumit Jhanwar, Panei Lawyer for respondents No.2 to 5/State. ^.a-iss.^,^ \^ i;i' :••'*"-<!» '^ (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) ORDER (De!iveredon11-8-2011) 1. By this petition under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the legatity & propriety <rf the orders dated 1.7.1987, 31.7.1989, 27.8.1993 and 25.10.94 passad by r^pondent& No.1 to 4, whereby the respondents have declarsd suipius land under ttw provisions ofthe Chhattisgarh Ceiling on Agricultural Heldings Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act, 1960") and have not mnsidered the description oftha iand which the original petitioner Chironjllai deserves to retain as provlded under Section 11 of the Act, 1960. As per orders passed by the revenue authoriti^, proceedmg under the Act, 1960 has been initiated against the original petitioner, in which some land has been declared surplus land by the competent authority and excluded the tand which the original petitioner has shown desires to retain. tn aforesaid proceeding, Savita Devi, daughter of the original petSioner has not been considered as major daughter. Finally vide order dated 22.9.1983 in Case No. Revision 60/5/82, the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Camp, Bilaspur has oonsidered Savita Dsw as major daughter and allowed the revision, Again record was sent b»:kfc»- recalculation. In the light of aforesaidorder, vide orda- dated 23.4.1987 the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaspur in Revenue Case No.^/A-90/74-75 by allowing share of Savita Devi has declared surptus land in accordance with Section 11 of the Act, 1960, in which the allotment of the land to the extent of share of Savtta Devi has been canceiled, but at the time of passing of such order the Sub Divisionai Offtoer has not considered ths appiication dated 21.1.1987 fited on behalf of the or^ina! petitioner Chironjilal for retaining khasra Nos.16/2 and 17/2 area 1.20 and 1.28 acres on the ground that initially the original petitioner has not shown his desire to retain the aforesaid land, Same was challenged before the Additional Coiiector, Bilaspur in Case No.40/A-QO(B)/87-88 arei vide order dated .31.7.89 the Additional Collector has afflrmed the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and further held that the aforesaKl tand has already been atlotted/distributed to others in accordance with the provisions ef the Act, 1960. Same was challoiged before the Additional ...-f" 5. 6. 7. Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilasur in Revision Case No.158/A- 90(B)/88-89 and vide order dated 27.8.1993 the Additionaf Commisste)ner has also affirmed the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. Same was also chaltenged before the Board of Revenue in Case NO.A- 13/cg/648/93 and Board of Revenue has also affirmed tha order passed by the Sub Dh/isional Officer vide order dated 25.10.94. 1 have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused the ordere Impugned and other documents filed on behalf ofthe petttionere. Leamed counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that originai petitioner Chironjiial has right to exercise his deseription in terms of Section 11 (1) (w) of the Act, 1960 reiating to his desire to retain the land but the Sub Divisional Officer has not considered the s^plication cteted 21.1.1987 filKl on behatf ofthe original petitioner Chironjilal for retaining khasra Nos.16/2 and 17/2 area 1.2) and 1.28 aca-es and thereby committed ill^ality. On the other hand, leamed Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.2 to 5/State opposed the petltion and a^ued that revenue authorities have not committed any illegality while passing sueh orders. Original petitioner has npt shown his desire to retain ttie aforesaid land. Total 59.50 acres of the land has been deciared surplus on the ceiling proceeding and aforesaid lands were aliotted/distributed to the persons m accordance with the provisions of the Act, 19®).After finalorder passed by the Board of Revenus dated 22.9.1983, the Sub Divisional Officertias deciared share of Savita Dsvi and entitiement to the e)dent of 12.% acres. Allotment of aforesaid lands to landl^s persons was cancelted, but at the time of such order, appiication filed on behaif of original petitioner for retaining the aforesald land was disaiiowea" by the comp^ent The originai petitioner has shcwn his desire to retain Uie land which doas not include the aforesaid tands. After order passed by the Board of Revenue, out of 59.50 acres of the land, 12.50 acres of the land was dectared in the share of Savita Devi asa a major daughter. The original petitioner has already used his option, in which he has not shown hls desire to retainjhe aforesaid land. After order of the Board of Revsnue, ^i"si'K^,,'/ iG;Lfila y "(...-..^ ^? 4 the competent authority has cancelled the lease of landt^s pereons to the extent of share of Savita Devi i.e. 12.50 acres out of aforesaki surplus land, which was rvrt the part of description of the land shown by the petitionertoretainthesame. . 8. In these circumstances, the revenue authorities have not eoramitted any ill^ality by not permitting the ffl'iginat petitioner to retain khasra Nos.16/2 S 17/2 area 1.20 acres & 1.28 acres which has already dwlared surplus vide order dated 31.12.1 975 and allotted to landless pereons. i do not find any ili^ality or infirmity In the orders impugned warranting interference in exerclse ofsupervisory jurisdlctton. Gonsequently, the writ petition is liabie to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharraa Judse u 't-.