BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH' AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22 85 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS, ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS. 6 W.P. N0. 0‘ 2002 PETITIONER: Harbhusan Giri aged about 38 years S/o Shri Mahant Rameshwar Giri, R/o Village Pavni, Development Block, Dharsiva, Tehsil & Distt. Raipur(C.G.) 1. State of Chhattisgarh, ’ thmugh Secretary, Depa11ment of Revenue, Mantralaya, DKS Bhavan, Raipur. 2. Commissioner, Raipur e 3. Collector, Raipur 4. Sub Divisional Omcer, Raipur. S HIGW H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR in ie Bench: Hon’bie Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra WP. No.60? of 2002 ’ Harbhusan Giri. Versus ORDER POST for 07- 04 —2011 Sdl— Prashant Kumar Mishr Judge ,W 6; - 04-2011 State of Chhattisgarh and oters. h a g’» HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. W.P. No. 607 of 2002 PETITIONER Harbhusan Gir Versus RESPONDENT$ , State of Chhattisgarh and others. Shri Awadh Tripathi‘ counsel for the petitioner. Shri GD. Vaswani, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER (. o} Io4izo11) Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner. Raipur Division on 22/02/2002 (Annexure P/1) dismissing his revision, which in turn, was preferred to challenge the order passed by Additional Collector. Raipur on 19l06f2001 (Annexure P/5). (2) Case of the petitioner. as projected in the writ petition, is that the petitioner moved an application Annexure P/2 on 16l10f2000 before the Sub Divisional Otticer, Raipur for exchange of land. it was stated in the application that petitioner wants to exchange his lands bearing Khasra No. 242/69 (part) area 0.71-7 hectare, Khasra No. 160/10 (part) area 0.012 hectare and Khasra No. 160/11 (part) area 0.040 hectare situated at village Pawni, block — Dharsinwa, Tahsil & District — Raipur in lieu of Government land bearing Khasra No. 245/1 (part) area 1.619 hectare which is in his possession for last 40 years. It was further stated that petitioner's land is superior to the Government land in terms of valuation, / quality and utility and the members of public can use the same for Nistari and road. i. (3) The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur called for repon from the Nayab Tahsildar who submitted his report on 20f10/2000 and thereafter the Sub Divisional Officer recommended the case. The Additional Collector, by its order dated 31l01/2001 allowed and permitted exchange of land. However, by order dated 16/04/2001 the Additional Collector reopened the matter and initiated sue-meta review on the ground that before passing the earlier order it was not born-ln-mind that the Nayab Tahsildar had not issued proper proclamation and 15 days time for raising objection was not granted and that petitioner's contention about his possession on the Govemment land for last 40 years is not supported from the revenue record. lt was also mentioned that while allowing exchange the consent of adjoining Bhumiswami was not obtained which is violationiof provisions contained in Section 4. Chapter iii, paragraph 20(1) of Revenue Book Circular and further that Government has been put to loss by allowing exchange. (4) The Commissioner, Raipur Division granted permission to the Additional Collector to take up the review proceedings and thereafter the Additional Collector, Raipur by its order dated 19I06/2001 (Annexure P/5) set-aside its earlier order dated 31/01/2001 permitting exchange of land. Petitioner‘s revision petition was aiso rejected by the Commissioner. Raipur Division vide Annexure P/1, which is under challenge in this writ, petition. (5) Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that reopening of the matter and initiation ofsuo—motu revision is illegal and in any case when the Additional Collector found discrepancies in the earlier proceedings, the matter should have been remanded back. On the other hand, learned State counsel would argue that there is no subsisting legal @@J right in favour of petitioner to claim exchange of land which is prerogative of the concerned revenue authority and once it is found that exchange of land would be detrimental to the interest of the State Government, a writ petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of lndia would not lie. He would further submit that there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned order, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. {6) i have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and has perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. ln the order Annexure P/5 by which the suo-motu review petition was allowed by the Additional Collector it is clearly mentioned that the Nayab Tahsildar issued the proclamation on 16/10/2001 inviting objection by 25/10/2001 whereas rules provide for at least 15 days time for inviting objection. On verification of revenue record it was found that the petitioner's possession on the Government land for last 4O years has not been recorded and the Nayab Tahsildar ignored the said aspect of the matter while submitting his report. lt is also found that land surrendered by the petitioner is already inoccupation of the villagers and is used for Nistari which is practically of no value and utility for the Government and thus the Government land granted to the petitioner in exchange is of superior value. The Additional Collector was of the view that under Section 4. chapter lll paragraph 20(1) of Revenue Book Circular consent of adjoining land holder is mandatory, however for want of proper proclamation such consent has not beenobtained. lt was also observed that the Nayab Tahsildar has not prepared the spot map and thus the ‘location of Government land Was not specifically identitied. in the .Mi‘w— Fyisional order also the Commissioner has mentioned this fact that the petitioner has not been able to controvert or demolish the reasoning and ~qw fmdings recorded by the Additional Collector while allowing review proceeding. Learned Commissioner has further mentioned that petitioner has offered 0.769 hectare land to be handed over to the State Government and in lieu thereof he has claimed 1.619 hectares of Government land and thus the petitioner is trying to obtain more than double area from the Government. (7) For invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court the petitioner is required to demonstrate any legai right in his favour under which he is entitled to exchange of land, however petitioner has not been able to point out any such provision under which he is legally entitted and the respondent revenue authorities are obligated in law to permit exchange of land. In the absence of any vested iegal right in favour of the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner‘s prayer for permitttng exchange of land cannot be alloWed; more particularly when the learned Collector as well as the Commissioner. Raipur Division have concurrently found that Government land, sought for by the petitioner, is more valuable and that the petitioner is offering lesser area than what he is claiming from Government. (8) ln view of the above, this Court does not find any substance in the writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed. . ... l ,, J.L;.£;EE:D,_'A,,Q“WW ,. ,.