IN TME HIGHGbURTCKB.JOMCATORifeAT BHASPUR CHHJCTTISGARH WRIT PETITION. N0~' OF 2005 BETWEEN 1. Idhan Das S/oShriNanakRatn,agedabout52yeaTS. ^2. Nanak Ram S/o Megha Mal, aged about 80 years. 3. Kanhaiya LalS/o Nanak Mal, aged about SOyears. 4. Om PrakashS/o Nanak Ratn, aged about 42 years. / ; : ' ! • /.• .. . _ . Afl are resident ofTilda, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG). ws^ PETITIONER ^cr SA ANO ^-1. The State ofehhatfisgaidi, Through the Seeretary DepaFtmenfof'Revenue ,Chl-iattisgarh, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (C.G.) ^fg; The Collector , Raipur (CG). '3. Nazul Officer, Tilda , Tahsil and District Raipur . _^. TaUsildar, Tilda , District Raipur (CG). RESPONDENTS WRTT PETmONUNDERARTICtB 226/227 OF CONSTTTUTION OFJNDIA aE 1 XI-HC-22 3^ •<(1«1<YI<<, ®Tl1'M'IS,Rl<'IWy sn^ 4Sf<t» v.f- ijv: s'^'8-fos NIKril sbNI* ••••••'"•'•'•••••'•/"••^ R'b<A *<1*<CTI snNIO) ^ so^r^r f^iwsn^r ehwv (rfer sn^T^TrwHfer *i'iil<'i41-f *<it<c')Tffts'^ <Ri*tfi< ^gRfiTsn^T 04/07/3»06 coiifasel selrved .celUed ofStfcte Shri Awadh Tripathi, Shri Sushfl Dubey, respondents/ State. Shrt Manoj Paranjape, co^ Heard. AU the petitionera were by Tahsildar, Tflda informmg them on lease havc been cancdll 03/05/2002 and by order and in revenue record in place| recorded as Govemment landl remove fheir possession by 25/| by ooercive process. Adinittcdly, on thc repo^t and 05/10/2001 Nazul Offi<j; 24/04/2002 wherein he propo^c Das, Kaahaiya Lal, Naaak RaB|i uistitution of crmunal case accepted the proposal on FeeUng a^rieved, Ashok Cominissioncr, Raipur who dismissed fhe same on fhe for petitioners. Ctovemment Advocate for fhe insel for objector. wifh notice datcd 19/10/2005 them that Nazul lands aUottcd to by the order of Collector dated Govemment dated 27/01/2003, of their name the lands have bcen thcrefore, they were directed to 10/2005 ofherwise to be removed of Tahsfldar dated 31/07/2001 j;cr submitted his proposal dated >^ed canceUation of lease of Idhaa and Devi Bai and also proposed Ashok Kumar. The Collector 03/0p/2002 by writing "As proposed". chaBenged fhe order before the vide order dated 13/08/2002 that fhe representetion is not ag^inst Kiua^r px)|und s) XI-HC-22 3^-^raRW, ®Tfl*<'16,RlCll^y 3ii3i?i <<a*»> U.^ NO. S-^>-^ JOS^ f^<>«A sn^rw R-fi+an^r Stl*<iq>Bf^(T STI^TTOITW <l)?cT 'bi'iitd'fl-f *<i*idT?rTs<<!l <R|'KK ^isgl^irsn^T R$C tak^ag undcr the provisions of Commissioner dated State Goverament. State 27/01/2003 hoiding fhe dismissed fhe same. TahsMar Tilda, in his it that the lease granted to Devi that a number of pcrsons refugees have obtained land | Nazul Officer in his note sheet Tatisydar vide his report da^ cancel lease after due scrutiny Nazul Officer in hte to Idhan Das, Kaahaya Lay pTOposed to initiate cruninal Conector without assigiung proposed . Eqiuty dexaands, propcr Nazul laads have been appropriatc aufhority afler it and after a vatid @-ant they Thcrefore, iffhcy are to be are required to be pven empowered to cancel the lease. The order passed by the 13/08/2p02 has been assafled before the Govenunent vide order dated ^epresenlafion not maintaiaablc, proposal p^posed anp 3port dated 31/07/2001 proposed pai may bc cancelled and proposed benefit of poUcy applfcable to |on tease, which requires enquiry. Pated 24/04/2002 incntioned that (ed 31/07/2001 has prpposcd to ^nd to mitiate crimiaal proaecution. to caacel the lcase granted Nanak Ram ahd Dcvi Bai and Iproceediag agamst Ashok Kumar. reasons wrote on note sheet "As g-a+ted folk4rang tabk ^pportuiiity of hearing. Admittedly to petitionera on tease by legal procedure prescribed for possession aad were enjoyiag it dep|~ived of fmm. their enjoymcnt, fhcy prot>cr opportunity by fhe authonty Nazul Officer was not fhc ofificer l^^fel^) XI-HC-22 311^1 qiT R-ii+sn^T snfiqigfer ,T •s'./f^. A-^ *•'; ^' iri- <~ ^- 3^^iraTCTO,s^pre, f^iray t<'l Mslch ^<> rjo: s-^&los- *t*.,..t,»».,,^,,..... *ll*(W(sh*ll<») wi; Rl^ ••^ 3<A<1 6'KIIWHfer - 2 'Wlfepft^irogfff fei<i) <Riw,i< ^"^il^ffsn^T who enquired the mattcr, Nazi^l Officer on the report ofTahsfldar drawn the nofe sheet proposia^ canceBation of tease deed, but he hnnself did not after scrutmy |give reasoned pioposal for it, and the Collector also did not ^scce to assi^n any rcasons for caiiceUatij^n of lease deeds •vtrhile accepting thc proposal on 03/05/2p02, Coiiunissioner a|ud State also did not consider fh.e matter of canceUatiou oflease o obtained the lands on leasq merit. If by playing fi-aud or i|usrepresentation, petitioners have or if the lcase graated to the petitionera is for any reason ill^gal and is liable to be caaceHed that should be canceUed^ but in accbnlance with law. In fhe result, it is direct^d fhat fhe matter of canceUation of lease of petitioners be heard |afi-esh by fhe competent authonty after afifoidiug opportuni^y ofhearmg to fhem and thereafter to decide fhe same by passiag|appropriate order of can.ceBatioii or otheCTrise. Petitipners may b4 ejected but not oftierwise fhaa in accordance with law. Sd//- V.K.Shrivastava Judge ('fl^^fe^) ^