\09V- ^. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATnSGARHI (C-)v^- _ — WRIT PETITION^NO. 2-3^ OF 2007 V- PETITIONER ^•-c^f ^. >^)y A^-'r ..-•"" Uk-'V>rk/. ^; Sl^" >"• •^- ..^ • _;)^' ^);ll».*> o' G^^ ..^. <0 RESPONDENTS ^ Jairam Sahu Son ofJugut Ram Sahu, aged about 45 years, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Dhaniyadoli, Tahsil Lormi, District.Bilaspur (C.G.). Gram Panchayat Dhaniyadoli, Through: The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Dhaniyadoli namely Jairam Sahu Son of Shri lugutram Sahu, aged about 45 years; Resident of Village Dhaniyadoli, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). (Correct description of the petitioner) E^^.^ %, ' "^,C~"-~A-8l ' ^•;s'!?'^ve^^' VERSUS 1. State ofChhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Fisheries, D.K.S. Bhavvan Raipur (C.G.). /2. The Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). ,3. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). j,; i \ II WRIT ^ETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, "•Y, CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION ETC. •"•-r ^^^^^s^ % HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivasiava, J. PETiTIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETiTiON (Cl N0.239/2007 jairam Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Present: - Shri P.P.Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate Genera! for the State/respondentNo.1 and2. Shri Akhilesh Kumar, counsei for respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 20 January, 2011) This petition is directed against order dated 3/1/07 passed by the Coilector in revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 18/4/06 (Annexure- ^. P/3) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lormi. 2. Brief facts reiating to this petition are that one pond is situated within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat, Dhaniyadoli in Khasra No.203/1. According to the petitioner, the said pond used to bs managed by Gram Panchayat and it was being allotted to the various persons appiying, in accordance with the norms issued by the State Government for ailotting the water tank for the purpose of Piscicuiture. in the year 1994, the said pond was given on tease to one Punauram and others and aiiotment was confirmed by the Gram Panchayat and saie deed was aiso executed vide exhibit P/1 by the Collector. An order for executing iease deed by Gram Panchayat was issued by the Coilector, Biiaspur. Further case of the petitioner is that after compietion of the period of iease granted in the year 1994, Gram Panchayat, Dhaniyadoli again passed a resoiution on 8/7/05 for grant of iease of the pond for Piscicuiture to one ^ Annapurna Swa-Sahayata Samuh. This was followed by execution of iease deed on 21/8/05 and an order to this effect was passed by Gram Panchayat vide 23/08/05 (Annexure P/3). 3. However, respondent No.3 vide letter dated 18/4/06, communicated that as per guidelines by the State Government, the allotment of lease of the concerned pond comes within the jurisdiction of Janpad Panchayat as the area of the pond situated in Khasra No.203/1 is 12.731 hectare and therefore, order dated 23/8/05 of the Gram Panchavat be treated as void. -Lt, ..t" ^- 4. Aggrieved by the said communication of the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, a revision was preferred before the Coliector but the same has been dismissed, whereafter this oetition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the pond is situated in Khasra No.203/1 which is within the temtorial area of Gram Panchayat, Dhaniyadoli. He further submits that the fact that in the past, the pond was being granted on iease by the Gram Panchayat, cieariy shows that the pond was within the control of Gram Panchayat. His further submission is that it has been wrongly assumed that the pond exceeds the iimits as prescribed by the State Governmenf in their order dated 24/3/03 (Annexure P/8). Learned counsei for the petitioner submitted that what was required to be seen was whether the extent of the pond and the area covered under water exceeds 10 hectares but in that regard, no enquiry has been made. He submits that before issuance of tetter dated 18/4/06, the Chief Executive Ofncer did not give any show cause notice to the Gram Panchayat and it is not known as to on what basis, it was assumed that the area of the water tank is more fnan 10 hectares. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that bn revision being preferred, the Coiiector has perversely recorded that both the parties have stated the area of pond as 12.731 hectares whereas this is the main crux of dispute between the Gram Panchayat and Janpad Panchayat. He further submits that the Collector came to the conctusion that the area of the pond is 22.731 hectares on the basis of "Najri Naksha" (spot map) and "Khasra Panchshala", which finding is aiso perverse. Last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the matter requires proper enquiry, measurement and spot inspection without which, the Chief Executive OfRcer coutd not have taken decision and the Coilector did not consider this aspect and wrongiy dismissed the revision. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No:3 argued thaf "Khasra Panchshala" which has been placed on record by the petitiQner itself shows thatthe area ofpond is 12.731 hectares. Learned counsei for respondent No.3 argued that in order to come to the conclusion that the area of the pond is 22.731 hectares, the Coilector has relied upon an authentic revenue document and therefore, it cannot be said to be pen/erse or without any evidence to support such a conclusion. He submitted that this petition is liabie to be dismissed firstiy, ,because this petition has been filed by the petitioner in his personai capacity without there being any resoiution of Gram Panchayat and secondly, in any case, the period of iease has been expired during the pendency ofthe petition. 6. Respondent No.3 has not placed on record any inspection report or any measurement taken by respondent No.3 to come to the conciusion with regard to 1 the area of the pond before issuance of tetter dated 18/4/06 (Annexure P/5). it is \ neither the case of respondent No.3 nor there is any other materiai to show that before issuance of this tetter, any joint inspection was made. In the order of the :3^ "".^ . ""••-. b^ Coiiector, it has been recorded that on the basis of "Najri Naksha" and "Khasra Panchshaia", the area of the land comprised in Khasra No.203/10 is 22.731 hectare. However, a perusal of "Najri Naksha" wouid show that the Patwari reported on 3/10/06 that the area ofthe pond is 22.50 acre which is iess than 10 hectares. The entry made in Khasra Panchshaia did not clearly state as to whether the measurement is in acres or hectares. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the flnding recorded by the Coilector in revision with regard to the area of the pond is not based on any cogent materiai and rather contrary to "Najri Naksha". As the area of the pond has been shown to be different in Najri Naksha and in Khasra entries, it is for the revenue officers to veri<v the same after making proper enquiry and actuai measurement of the pond which has not been done. None of the respondents have placed on record, any report with regard to actual measurement of the pond. In so far as objection with regard to maintainabiiity, sufRce to say that the petition, at the instance of the petitioner, who at the time of filing of petition was a Sarpanch, wouid be maintainabie as he being Sarpanch had sufficient iocus to fiie petition in the matter relating to aifairs of Gram Panchayat and it was not necessary that it shouid be supported by resoiution of »- Gram Panchayat. Otherwise aiso, the question whether jurisdiction is with the Gram Panchayat or not, couid be raised by any resident of the Gram Panchayat area. This objection has, therefore, no basis. 7. The other objection that as the period of iease has expired, the petition is rendered infructuous, is equally misconceived in law. The petrtioner is noi ciaiming'any right under the lease. The issue which has been raised is whether the Gram Panchayat has authority to grant lease. if the orders and action are aiiowed to stand, the Gram Panchayat would be debarred from aliotting pond on lease, in view of the order of Chief Executive Officer and the Coilector passed in th®revision. 8. in the finat anaiysis, the order passed by the Coilector in revision is not sustainabie in law and has to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded back to the ColSecior for fresh consideration of the revision petition. The Coilector may obtain spot inspection and actua! measurement report from the subordinate revenue authorities with regard to the area of the pond. The petition is accordingiy aiiowed. Sd/- M.M. Shrivastava Judge t-