Petitloner HK3H COURT OF CWUCTTI^ytflH. HLASPUR s< WWt PeUtton (Ct No.129 ^2W7 ^ « *« Somndh Ifesharwanl ^ed about 31 >^ yeara S/o. : 'PtemlBC,^:^B|iai(CE Kesharwani, R/o. T.V. TflweF, s% Chhcteuttarmucla. RalgaiEli, TlailiSK^^ Dtstrict Ratgarh (C.G.) . - Respondents Veisus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: the Secretary Department ef Reweriue B.K.S.Bhawan Raipur (G.G.) 2. The Coltector Raigarh, E^riel Raigarh (C.G.) ~\ ''-.,::'':"::::1; -1- 3. Nazut OfRoer Raigarh, Dlstrict Ftetgarh <<C.G.) -' ' ' '::-'".•:''.: 4. Municipal Corporation Raigarh, Distrid Raigarh (C.G.) , 5. Joint Director Town & Gountry Plannlng Raigarh, ra^iwt Ra(garti 6. Dhlrija Bai, Wd/o. Late Lahoram Dewar, aged about80 yea^ resldent of Sonumuda, Raigarh, Tahstl and Distrid Raigarh (C.G.) {Writ Petition under Artfcle 226 ofthe Constltutlon of India} Present: . : • • ...:.,--:,...—».. Mr.Raghvendra Pradhan, counsel for the petiUoner. Mr.Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocsrte tor r^pondents No.1,2,3 and 5. MrV.KAgrawal, counsel Ibr respondent No.4. ; None present for respondent No.6. Sinole Bench: Hon'lbte Mr. T.P.Shanna. J » » ORALOroER T2-8-2010) 1. By this petition, the pditiwier has chaUer^ed the legaltty and propriely of the order dated 8.8.2006 (Annexure P/1) passed toythe Secr^ary, Department of Revenue, State of Chhattisgarh, whereby theonler dated ^'f^s^. %g ®a ^ ^/•^ ^.hJ'.^eS^' ^^•^a ~ 17^2.2005 (Annexure P/2) passed by the ColleGtor, Ralgarh in Case NO.N.A.W2005/1288 was uphekl. 2. The order is impugned on theground that witftout provkting opportunlty of hearing to the petttloner, Revenue Court haspa^ed the-OKler of cancellation of lease executed in favour ofrespondent ^to.6 who has transferred the lease hold right to the petltioner. 3. I have heard leamed counselforthe parttes, pemsedthe order impugned and copy ofother documents. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ 4. Initially the State Govemment has leased out the dtsputed property te re^iondent No.6 vide lease deed dated 22.12.2003 inRevenueGase No.9/A-20{1)]/1981-82 for thirty years. Ctause (7) of the lease deed provides for asslgnrnentftransfer of lease and in case of suBhassignment, lessee and assignee were requirKi to delwer a notfee pf such assignment to the Collector withln one month ofsuch ass^nment. 5. tn the present ease, tessee and assignee have not delivered aich nottee directly, but name of the present petitioner hs®been witered by the authority ofthe State Govemment In Revenue MaintenanGe Khaaa. %e present petitloner has ateo applled for mutation of his name In revenue recordwhich has been verifled by the authority ofthe State GQyemmert and finally name ofthe petltioner w^ mutated vide orderdated 29.3.2004 (Annexure P/9) in Revenue Case No.^/A-6/03-04 by the Nazyl Offica-, Raigarh. Show-cause notice has ateo been Issued to SmtEttij^iBatand" Trilochan Dewar retatfr^ to vlolatton of condition of lease vtde notiee drted 26.2.2005 which was property replied by respondent No.6 Dhii^a Bai vide the <LC^-IAJ''IL repty dated 14^2:2305^ Thereaftw, the Collector, Ra^arh has '-g iS-T'lo order dated 17<2r.2(X)5, although in accordance with sub-sectiw (1)and (2) of Seetlon 182 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Gode, 1^9,tfte Govemment is empowered to cancel the lease tn ease of any contravention of the terms and condittons of lease. No ^eciUG fenn of notice has been provided. 6. In the present case, on the applteation of the petitioner after maldng necessary inquiry, name of the pr^ert pe^kmer hasbeenmdtated^^^ nazul record and at the time of cancellation order pass«iby tte Golle<tor, Raigarh, same was well within the knowledge of the Cpllector, but bekye any order of cancellatlon of lease cfeed whksh had yltimsftety effeGted the right ofthe petltioner, the Coltector has not gh^enany noticeoropportunlty ofhearing to him and has canceUed thetease fnechantealty. , - 7. tn these circumstances, order ofcancdlatton Qtleaseste^nat juatfflted. : WMe dtemissing the applksaltem ofthe p^itione^theSecaetery, R^enue Department has also not conskiered the same thtr^ and ttereby i commttted illegality. Suchoreterwithoutprovicnr^<^]porturi^^heai'in®is»" nol sustainabte under the taw. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^-^^^^^^^^^^^^^- « 8. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order impugned and the prcter oftheCollector, Ra^arh are herdiy setashle. 9. Leamed counsel fbr the (^tlttoner submte that atter paB^ng^ofthe oreter, land has been used by the State Govemrnent Iw e<OTrtriN3ton-<9freac|,- therefbre, restitutton ofthe property would not be posstote.-'--- -w:- lO.Consldering the aforesaid clrcumstanees of other l^see, the State Govemment has provided other landsto assignee bywayoFr^ Leamed counsel for the pditkwier submits that Stete Qwemment be ? directed to provide such reliefto tlre p^itioner ateOy 11.The State Govemment vlde oreler dated^/CT.2006 in Revenue Case No.54/A-2)(iy05-06 has provid«l other lands to Dayaki^'ian^Agrsnwty Jivanram, Ghanshyamdas Garg, Smt.OmpatiandothCTpersw®^f * 12.Conadering the peculiar circumdances of e case, respwidents Nq.1 to 3 are directed to rehabilltate the present pettttoner by provlding ether land in lleu of the aforesald lease. No or<ter as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Shanna Judge ^ ^ L-ri^