u;- ..'» ^ 1?'*<-.<?=• "!t**£ei/€ tcw^f w / ^^," ;,.-<"? RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR WntPetitiion No,4154 of2()04 Ghasidas Panka S/o Dhansai aged about 38 years, Formar Kotwar, R/o Village Karbadabri, Tehsil ' Bilaigarh, E)istrict Raipur (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Revemie, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Collector, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (CG).. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaigarh, District Raipur (CG). 4. The Tahsildar, Teh. Basna, Distt. Mahasamund (CG). 5. Smt. Budhwara Bai W/o Rameshwar Sataami, aged about 40 years, oceupation Kotwar, R/o village Kabradabri, Tehsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur (CG). (WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF IND1A) tSB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Asarihotri, J.) Present : Shri F.S. Khare, Advocate fbr the petitioner. Shri Rajendra Agrawa!, Panel Lawyer for the State. >tli t,2 With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finajly. 1. The case ofthe writ petitioner is that prior to 1950 tfae predecessors of the writ petitioner was in possession of some lands which is now in possession of the writ petitioner. It is farther contended that the possession of the lands in question has been uninterrupted and coatinuous. The lands in question are elearly recorded in the Jamabandi i.e. revenue land record in the name of the predecessor of ^^A- -±AA.&.. 1 i-g .//" ^s-^' <^y ,'2- -A. the writ petitioner. Tfae petitioner is presently working as Kotwar. He is not claiming the said land which is recorded in Jamabandi on tbe basis that he is Kotwar but on the basis that such land has been granted by competent authority to the predecessors prior to 1950. 2. Learaed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that having been in continuous possession of the land in question for such a very long time even on humanitarian consideration the petitioner should be given Bhumiswami rights. It is also farther coatended that in another case vide Writ Petition No. 2064 of 2000 disposed of on 03.05.2001 such direction was issued by this Court in respect of 36 Kotwars. Leamed counsel fbr the petitioner further placed reliance on a decision of this Court in W.P. No. 2632/2000 (Chhabil Das & Others Vs. The State of M.P. <fe Another) passed on 30.10.: It is turther contended that even otherwise village Kotwar is also entitled to get some lands as Kotwar. 3. According to leamed counsel for the petitioner a vill^e Kotwar is entitled to ten acres of land. The petitioner is claiming possession of the lands recorded in revenue records as that land was in possession of his predecessor who was also village Kofrwar. 4. According to leamed counsel for the petitioner the land in quesstion is land and not a service land. Leamed eounsel appearing for the State contrQverts this statement 5. Be that as it may, it seems to me that the petitioner is elaiming Bhumiswami rights over the land which was granted to his predecessor prior to 1950 and the said land was duly recarded in revenue records. .-.Uuut, /^ —,^> 6. On pemsal of the relevant documents placed before me and after hearing learaed counsel of both the sides, I am of the view that it will be just and fair that the competent autiiority shall consider the issue after aftbrding proper opportunity of hearing to ail the parties and pass appropriate order in regard to claim ofthe writ petitioner. 7- In the result, without expressing any opinion on merit, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the competent authority shall consider the case ofthe petitioner for grant ofBhumiswami right, in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity ofhearing to the conceroed parties, within a period of three months from the date of receipt ofa copy ofthis order. No order asto costs. Certified copy, as per Rules. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sahu