éf/ Qmk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR C.G) WRIT PETITION C No. 99 200 / PETITIONERS 1. M/ s. Uttamchand Dhariwal 85 Company, Raipur (C.G‘) Through its Partner — Inderchand Dhariwal, S/o. Late Shri Uttamchand Dhariwal, Aged about 6O years, R/ol 45/4, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) ‘ Laxman Sahu, S / o. Konda Sahu, Agcd about 65 years, Jagar Ram, S/o. Somsai Sahu, Aged about 58 years, Bhagat Ram, S/ol Kejau Ram, Aged about 7O years, ,2 to 4 R/o Village Jora Tahsi1 & D‘is‘trict Raipur’ (cs) VERSUS RESPONDENTS / 1. _ Stato of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secrstary, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (cs) / 2. Collector, 'Raipur (C.G.) 3. Additional Tahsildar, Raipur (C.G.) /4. P.N.B. Farmers Welfare Trust, Punjab National Bank, Kachhari Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226,”; OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA‘ FOR ISSUANCE OF.WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, ORDER OR ORDERS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. The petitioners, above named, begs to submit as under :— V, XI—HC-22 HW,W,W mm . w;.€.t.q.t.)n.l.a.9.. ’ In 200; State] respondents No. 1 to 3. Shri Sanjay K. A awal, learned counsel for the caveatorj respondent N0. 4. Heard on admission and M.W.P.No. 410/2007, application for interim relief. By the instant petition the petitioners are challenging the order dated 18. l 1.2002 (Ann exure P] 5) passed by respondent No. 1] State by which the land in dispute has been allotted to P.N.B. Farmers welfare Trust i.e. respondent No. 4 and order dated 17.7.2006 whereby the respondent 'No. l has rejected the review application nled by the petitioners against the order dated 18.11.2002. 0n the application of respondent No. 4 for allotment of the land in question, respond No". 1 vide order dated 18.1 1.2002 allotted 8.07 acres of land s uated at village Labhandi nee pof cost for its proposedtraim'ng pro amme with the conditions that in the m aném am WW mmW mam?m§mW mw %3T%H3TI%W ‘ 09.02.2007 Shri Ashish Shrivasta , learned counsel for the petitionars. Shri Suryakant 'shra, learned P.L. for the XI-HC—22 WW,WW,W Wm W1)“. .Cé)...l§&... g1 20031 iiawm WH1%H‘ mmw f2?— WW§WW %3T%maq1%$ said training programme $55., S.C. and landless farmers shall be accorded special concession ;, it shall not be used. for commercial purpose, in the training cantor no banking activities shall be performed nor the land shall be used for commercial use, the farmers of Chhattis'garh shall be irained free of cost, with other conditions relating to payment of compensation in the event the State takes back the possession of the allotted land. The above allotment was assailed by the petitioners vide their review application of Annexure P18. dated 19.1.20‘05 on various grounds including the ground that (in the allotted land a road to Pirda in the area' 1.25 acres exists, a part of the land is in possession of Sharma Krishi Farm and Kalash Krishi Farm, the land in question is a grass land and the same could not be allotted to any organization Without there being a valid order of a competent authority regarding diversion of purpose. Earlier- a writ petition No. 2932j2005 was iile’d by the petitioners for the identical relief which was disposed of by this XI—HC—22 Wm w .'.\0.'.t.¢J. .L‘M. . W WWW “$.— - ,%aw%nm a1 2001 Court with a direction to the State Governm ent to dispose of the review petition Within a period of three months &om the date of Thereafter, respondent No. 1] State receipt of copy of that order. vide order of Annexure P] 1i; dated 17th July 2006 rejected the review petition and confirm ed the order of allotment. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by the impugned order the review petitionhas been arbitrarily rejected by respondent No. 1 Without considering the legal objections raised by the petitioners. It has been ignored that the land of the petitioners is adjacent to the allotted lard and a part of it is used as a way by He further submits that in Nistar Pattak it is described as grass land and public way and unless the same is separated nom the Nistar Patrak, it could not be allotted. He further submits that on the . date of allotment it was not the Nuzul land as village Labhandi was i included in the municipal area only on 27. 12 .2003. the villagers including the petitioners since long. (deed?) ’/ XI—HC-22 Emma, Wan—gr,W m9) W ’ Wm .N:Y.-.Lc.)...l."lf1. Hi 200:; w. WWW ' —A .._ WWEWW %ar%tr3n%¥r On the other hand, Sh‘i Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsal 1" \o appearing on caveat on behalf of respondent No. 4 eubmits that in fact the petitioners themselves want to get the land allotted, the land in question is not used as a grass land or a way as there is an alternative for Pirda which is used by the villagers. The way being by review petition was belated ais the eame was nled after almost three years of the allotment and in pursuance of the allotment 30 years lease deed ' has already been executed between the State and respondent No». 4 which could be assailed only by way of Eing a civil suit. The allotment has been made in favour of respondent No. 4 for laudable public purpose of establishing training center of the farmers under the welfare programme of the bank. The petitioners are not the residents of the village concerned and at we their instance general public interest and public Welfare scheme of respondent No. 4 should not be anected. He further submits that all the raised the have been duly considered grounds by petitioners by the respondent No. 1 and their review petition has been rejected by a reasoned order and as s ich, no interference is called for. . w.awm, r XI-HC-22 3am, Wig,W Wm mm ..W.1?.'.4Al..l4.a. ai 200g m wmw hyk mmwwm $Wm I have heard learneé. (:nunsel for the parties and {Serused the impugned bider. It is not in disputé th the aHhtment of the land in question was made in favour of res ondentk DioA on 18.11.2002 and in 3 L pursuance ~thereof an _ag ent of lease of Annexure Pf6 {va‘s‘f entered into between respo dent No. 1 and respondent No. 4 on 3. 12.2002 which shall‘be v ‘d for a period up to 31st Morch 2032. The chaJlenge to the above otment was made by the petitioners only 1n the year 2005. epondent No. 1 rejected the review of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are ’ application not the residents of the age where the land in question is \/ situated and as such, they ave no locus standi to object against Qi‘ the above allotment, apar &om other grounds. The review i i petition was nled by the petitioners for the reasons that they were A using the said land for the purpbse of approaching their respective inelds situated at village Jora Labhandi, as such they were exercising their right of . easement otter thWM *- you mew; XI—HC-22 K. WW§WW' %31%w311%31 (a) (b) therefore, they were the aggl ieved party. This fact has been denied by the respondent No. 1] State. However, respondent No. 1 on the basis of material available on record has recorded a hndjng that the petitioners have not a duced any evidence to establish that they themselves were using 1he land in question as a Way or for the purpose of grazing. The review petition 01 "the petitioners has been rejected by the impugled order with the hnding‘s that; being the residents of other the petitionsrs an aggrieved party, therefore,_ village, are not their belated olbjection after a period of three years of the allo1 mare is no evid petitioners exer way or the land for grazing purp‘ ases; and‘ ment cannot be entertained; :nce on record to show that the :ised any right of easement of . in question was used by them (@W) XI-HC-22 No.1[State is f r the Welfare of the farmers considering the eneral interest of the farming community at 1 by the respondent No.1 for rejecting V‘be valid and justined and the same g6. ‘ The reasons assigned the review petition appear t( rise of the jurisdiction available to the has been passed in due exer State Government. Even ottherwise, the petitioners are claiming themselves to be the aggrieved party solely on the ground that their right of way has been at however, this assertion of 1 ".he right of easement is a disputed question of fact which ca; nnot be gone into under the writ jurisdiction. In the result; the pe titlo'n being devoid of substance is dismiss ed'at the admission s Lage itself. No order as to'costs. Consequently, M.W.P.I Yo. 410/ 2007 also stands disposed of. Sd/— Dhirendra Mishra fected because of the above allotment, Judge (dieW) "‘\ O Wm mm . ..n:g;.t.a2..1€/.a. a1 200% m mam mares WWW WW§WW WW v é a w m (c) the order of otment by the respondent