IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATTIRE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) ; nv \ I'TJ W.P. N0. l£ <?-.,°) OF 2001 c .<.' 1- IN THE MATTER OF: ^.^^^}-' .AW ~.t-.;/" ?• --.fp^fs^ ^<e^""' ,\./-"' RE^S'ONDENTS PETITIONER ^] .-^/^w GBRVINDER SINGH CHHADDA Son of Shri Mahendra Singh Chhadda, aged 38 years Resident of Ravigram Subhash Nagar, Raipur VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector Raipur (C.G.) 2. Tbe Commissioner Raipur Municipal Corporation, Raipur 3. The Nazul Officer, Collectorate Raipur PETITION UNDER _ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI AND/OR FOR ORDER(S) AND/OR DIRECTION (S) IN THE NATURE OF WRITS TO, JT^MT 1 TST -CI—1^1 3TE XI-HC-22 ^5? -^w^w, ^T^.WW, 'fe^nwp ^"gl W.P.No.891/2001 SiT^rq? Wl'W 3T]^I ^i^ict) <cfi?-ff -6°2 00-1 STi^I ?^flT®'HfeT Sbri Kishore Bhaduri for] General, for the Belng surpri d>!<<Irt'fl-l TV^ ^ fS<S ^R?R q; aiprftl 3n^( the oetitioner sed with the in which the procs'e were conducted by the. Tehsil[dar{Sazul5 ,Raipur in Revenue Case No»18/A-68/2000-01, I rjaquested the Advocate Genera .er and hustifv the action of the Tehsilaar wss already supplied to the General• Advance copy of the peti|tion alongwith the annexures bffice of the learned AA-ocat! From the proceedings,An!^exare-P/l'E),it appears thet 7-5-2001 in the sald revebue case after receivina eome report the Addl.Tehslldar 61^-ected that the matter be matter was adiour registered in the register c^f A-68 and a notice be issued to the alleged encroacher Gu|rvinder Singh Chadda. The it n'as lces rehained unserved. The Tehsildsr directed for issuance of the! fresh notices and fixed the case for 30-5-2001. It also app^ars from the records that Tehsild;.; (Nazul) directed issuance of! the notices but as the notices could not be served he orderjed on 28-5-2001 that if the t 1 ' noticee is not avallable.theb the same be served bv affixture "^ v ~.r. .s Tn^i"^T^~^ p •^ti'^"?! ^S f?;iW.°lt;?T ii^) t-il^" .31'S-sr i^iisp: -gS^ 'SOTRTCN iniRfi i[ fgrt TfeZK ^ •3TFa?T S'nt^ The case wa.s adiourned ta 2-6-2001. On 2-6-2001 the petitioner through hi s co made a recrusst for ;rant of.time to file refily. The case was a djo'-irned I to 4-6-2001. On 4-6-200l|s the petitioner through his .1 counsel made an applicatijon for grant of some time but the learneci. Tehsildar(Nazbl) rejected ths^ appllcation and as no replv was file. by t'le petitloner passed an order under Section 248( l^) directing the petitioner to remove;:his possession frjom over survey no.64 over which thei petitioner had |raised certein pakka co'ri.s'truction; The application filed undjer Section 10 C.P.C. oa the ground that the same aatt|er was pending before 'the Addl .Tehsildar was not co'nsidered dsservina that the sanie was subject matter o|f Addl•Tehsildar's Cousta On 4-6-2001, the Tehsildap$Nazul) passed the f-t;''.al ordsr under' 'Section 248 dxrectl^g that the petitioner had macle encroachment upon survey po.64 i-Aile he was granted a patta for survey no<50/l ^.rid as he did not file any reply, he be evicted.The Ipetitioner was given two days ' time to remove encroachmeht» On 4-6-2001, as it app-sars from the 'proceedings . t'nat] after.the order was passed by • the Tehsildar(Nazul). the petitioner s'jbmitteci his reply It appears that the petitp.oner s<as. also made an appllcation before the'-TehsilHar that he has filed sorae i petition in the High Courk which was ordered to 'oe 3.iste 1 on 23-5-20Qlo It appears! from the proceedings of this aa ca.se W£S adjoumed and was ^RPR.i—FS'.;;;— 1 /2 00 i —50.0UI). Xi-HC-22 '3^! •<<l<fld<), WSKPfe, ^ 31TSW T^% W.P.No.891/2001 SiI^I'S^ ^ira'an^i ^Hi^ ^Ti^T sn^iwnm ct;!^kl'il1'1 ^W^ ^ fe^ •^afl-^aTR^r . Th© subn1J.ss±Qns of the petitioner are th.at the mants have ^been polluted and cannot' be .approved by aay ji| Tehsildar{Naal$ did not oiv<fe pstitioner .fco submit his ca; case like present wben the Summer Vacation -e arne' >ntier in which the proceediRgs cont^minated by Tehslldar(Nazu.l) i|idicial autb.6rity becau.se fche glv<| proper,opportunity to the s^e. According to him. in a :acts were known to the Tehsil Coi.irt. it was no' prorertlme. It is also subi+itt'ed that on 4-6-: ' ' 1 hsste the flnal <x der w^s passed aind the said orcter has alreac^ been executed by den^olishing the construction on 9-6- 2001. The petitioner submitts that he is still In possessicin of.-:th'e land and as the proe^sdings have been. conducted in idQSt J.lleaal.. arbitrary and capricious manner. this Court must interfere. • Shri Shrivastava» learne|d Advocate General, submits; that the order is a.'^psi^aSsisx. appqalable.therefore, this Court must r-t^^fe^ sn^'CT^i 'K-iidl SlR^t ^M^ ^ft^ ;SwS»l 4^q»(' SV^ffWlW^S cfti'4[^41Ti 'qp^ ^' t^?i"d^R£R: ^ aif=aii sn^r - not interfere. He howev^r submits that looking to the urgency f;(fi)tfae raatter if |a 3'ri.bntia.l^lias^acted very swiftly the order cannot be cond^mned as bad. I have heard the partjies. From the proceedlngs [dated 2-6-2001 recorded by the Tehsilcaar(Nazul) , it iclearly' appears that he granted the petitiioner-to on.ly tti'o days time to/sufcjmit his reply. On 4-6-2001, Tehsilc!.ar(Nazul5 closed ilhe rioht of the petitic.ner to 1 submit his reply and dir^cted his eviotion frosn the premises. From the Qrde4-sheet,it xxg does not! a.i-'pe ar':'" he ever ;E.feCQrded an-a evidence of anv autho.rj.tv, whether revenue or of Nasjul,to verify whether the petitioner in fact has mdde any encroachment on. survey ao.64. From the tenttr^ and texture of the final cs" d6r i dated 4-6-2001, it appeaijs that said Tehsi.ldar had received some informatiori. from Patwari Halka No.113 c.hat the ^titioner had njade encroachment on svsvev no«64 1 .In tbe opinion of th-^s Court, the manner in which the proceedings were con^ucted cannot be approved. A proper opportunity to deflend a sj.ne quanon wit'n the i raised settled posse^sion of the property and had construction. . |lt does not appear fro" the A.s already observed, inal orders that barring the report of the Patwari,thers ORPR'—FS/ii !—l/2i)Oi—5U.OOO. X5-HC-22 » 'svi ^ji<4id<<, '^ftoTre, feroy 3!I^['ERI R'ii.+ an§?t ?CTRi"aT5a W.P.No,.,89, 3d^i ^fli®•fffer was any other materlal on t petitioner had made some en te record to show that the 'roachment on survey no n the "cetlti^oner has alt but whfin the proceedi.ngi le; ed by th r 1. t.v s qOTfeTiftTRTWff'? ISTA ' •^aTpOTsn^T and wss not confining himse^f to survey no.50/1 whj.ch was sllotted to him under s4)me lease deed. Ordinarily»^-&f!Court und^r Article 226 does not interfere itrnati'i/e remedies availabls to hi"" to" t'he order and the orocess then the alternatlve remedy ^E jurisdiction under Articl 4»cks the conscience of the Courta would not 'oe a bar to ex-.'fcise of ^As^ 226 or the Constitution of India. TakinQ' Into cons±d®ratldnthe manner ln which the Tehsildar(Nazul) had exercid considered opinion that the 1s power-, Z am of ths proceedinQS conducted b~-' him.so also tbe final order passed by him. deserve to be quashedo The same are accordinaly qu^shed, The pstitioner shall apijear before the said Tehsildar (Nasul) on 18-6-2001,and ahajll suomit hls rsply. The Teteildar would 'be c&'lxcsed to orovlde fea.ch and everv document to th® petltioner enabling him to 'jjndersta'nd as to what are the allegations and on what basil alleging that the petitioner X£ 'th® |s the Tehsildar and Fatwari are in [tr^?Rgq 3*1^1 l4;(tb(tjc(fy)qer ) sn^i^i R;ii+ snt?i WrfV^ -Hl?fl sn^rTOiiwd^t +l'Mli'l'i1-i HIHfff'SfS^t A^aK •^T .srfitn aiK^i allegations by leading orqil or documentary evidence.then the Degartment may do so ftut in any case the petitioner would be given <proper oyportunity to Isad evidence 1 in support o£ his case. ^he Tehsildar fihall be dsliged to complete the proceedxn^s after giving proper opportunitv ^. period of three areeks from the date of the appearance of parties shall majjntain the status-quo in relation to possession as it obtairjs today until final disposal of the proceedings pendincj h.efore the TehsilaarCSazul) The petitlon is .allow^d. C.c. to both the part.iies. .___—-— Sd/- R.S. Garg '..,