Singb 33nd] '4 N” ,LK IN THE HIGH COURI OE JUDICAEURE AE BitASPUR (C.G.) mm para-mm N0. €447 12005 ‘ Laxmi Vijay Saw Mill, Registered Office at Balod, Dist. Burg (C.G.) Through its Proprietor Shri Ladharam, S/o. Bhanji Patel, Aged about 50 years, R/o. Ward No. 10, Balod, District Durg (C.G.) /& State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Department of Forest, Mantralaya,D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur {c.G) RESPONDENTS Divl. Forest Officer, Burg Division, Durg(C.G.) Biswas Kumar Yadav, S/o. Late Shri Durga Prasad Yadav, Smt. Hemlata Yadavp W/O. Late Shri Durga Prasad Yadav, Smt. Damayanti, W/o. Shri Dhananjay Kumar Yadav, ;/Respondents No. 3.to 5 R/o. Jawaharpara, Balod, District Burg (C.G.) ,/6. Krishna Kumar, S/o. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, /j. Shiv Kumar, S/o. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, 8. Raj Kumar, S/Q. Shri ishwar Singh Thakur, ‘/9. Smt. Padma, D/O. 3hri Ishwar Singh Thakur, Smt. Urmila, W/o. Late Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur,' 6 to 17 1: Respondents N0. R/o. Parras, Ward No. Balod, Tahsil Balod, District Durg (C.P.) OF CONSTITUTION OF 1mm FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIOEARI, W3 PROHIBITION WRIT PETITION WEE ARTICLE 226/227 luE) FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, OmER OR ORDERS! DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS //10. Smt. Shail Bai, D/o. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, ll. / Helen Bai, D/o. Shri Ishwar Singh T akur, / 12. Smt. Manju, D/o. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, /13. Smt. Rama, Dfo. Shri Ishwar $ingh Thakur, Smt. Ratna, D/o. Shri Tshwar Singh Thakur, Shakuntala alias Bela, D/o.‘Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, Sanju, S/o. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, XLHC-22 3am, Wm,W @ W 200 S Ia Mr. Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Law Mr. Santosh Yadu, counsel for As the other writ petitions na vs. State of Chhattisgarh and other: Mart vs. Shte of Chhattisgarh an (W.P.Nc.620/2005 Pate! Saw Mi“ invoiving same question of iaw, therefore, ail the four writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of convenie, mentioned herewith. The case of the petitioner is possession of the iand bearing Kh: acres of iand at Patwari Haika No.5/ when the petitioner Saw Milt was set. question has aiso been constructet Miii, and he used to get consideratio operation since then, and that has expen ses. {er for the State/respondents No.1 & 2. respondents No.3 to 5. mely, W.P.No.647f2005 (Laxmi Vijay Saw Mill vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others); W.P.No.648/2005 (Bharat Saw Miil ;); and W.P.No.649/2005 (Ramani Timber d others) are similar to this writ petition vs. $tate of Chhattisgarh and others), ‘nce, facts of W.P.No.620/2005 are being that partner of the petitioner Saw Miil is in sra Nos.606!1 & 60612. rakba 1.100f2.72 i. Tehsil: Balod. District: Durg, since 196$. up and a residentiai house on the land in i. The said iand was belonging to Late ishwar Singh who authorized the petitioner to establish and operate their Saw Milt is in peaceful possession of the aforesaid land and the Saw Milt is in been set up after incurring considerable The revenue record shows that the land in question was in the name of landowner Late ishwar Singh which is evident ftom Annexure P-i. it On the death of lshwar further shows the existence of the petitioner Saw Mill. Singh the land was mutated in the 1 in return. Since 1969. the petitioner Saw rame of legal heirs, which is evident from mam imam mmaxm mag“? “Wif‘W‘ . . WW 29-6-2im5 Mrs. Fouzia Mirza. counsel for the petitioners. # av «A mm? WW??? wWé ‘ Ww afa 11’6“ W 20.6 5 garxm (WEI) l Wm’mfaia: mgfz—n aqréx: t ! W ”m '{T—l qm‘i-‘L? iicf‘ ’.xa’€:~: an 'c. W ’ 2r Map Form B-1 Annexure P-2. lnitiail Hcence for setting up and running of Saw Mill was granted in the year 1969 nd thereafter, continu‘ously the licence is being renewed. Copies of iicenc is Annexure P-3. The petitioner was registered under Section 11 of the hhattisgarh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam. $69, and the registratioh certification is Annexure P-4. The legal heirs of Late ishwar Singh fried apéiication dated 11-9-2001 (Annexure P-S) before the Chief Municipai Officer, Municipal Council, Balod, to the effect that the tax should be collect from the p4rson who are in possession. Since then, they are paying all the property tax tequired by the Municipal Council: Balod, l and no tax is due against them. Restoondents No3 to 5.all of a sudden applied for mutation of the aforesaid land inEtheir names before the Tehsildar‘ Balod and the Tehsildar mutated the landi in their names without information the petitioner, which was challenged eefore the Upper Collector. Durg, who l dismissed the appeal. Therefore the petitioner moved the Revenue Board z before which the matter is pending for ‘consideration. For the year 2005. the petitioner has already deposited thefees amount Rs.50i/- on 16-11-2JO4 for renewal of licence. Copy is Annexure P-SI. Respondents No.3 to 5 tiled an application before respondent No.2 requesting therein not to renew the licence of the petitioner Saw Mill. Thereafter, l respondent No.2 passed order dated 24-1-2005 (Annexure P-tO) directing the 5 petitioner to transfer the Saw Mill to§ another place within t5 days. But the g question of title of land is still pending before the Revenue Board. Therefore. :the petitioner has prayed for quashment of order dated 24-1-2005 Annexure P- ; 1.0 and for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to renew lthe licence of the petitioner. XI»H( n38 WW WW 37mm alf of respondents No.1 8. 2 in which it has is registeredW under $ection 11 of Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969. It has also Mill is running underthe licence issued by respondent No.2 and that is bel renewed from tlme to time. However‘ it has been mentioned in para 11 of the turn that there is a dispute in respect of the iand on which the Saw Mill is ' petitioner to shift the Saw Mill to y other undisputed land and his licence wiii rest to renew the licence. so the impugned h Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Kastha Chiran a bonafide intention not to allow the Saw Miil mmm ‘2K ' Return has been filed on not been disputed that the petiti the Chhat‘tisgarh Van Upaj (Vy been admitted that the petitioner be renewed. lt is not in public notice was given in accordance (\Viniyaman‘) Adhiniyam‘ 1984 wi to run on any disputed land. {have heard learned coun Ifor te parties. s h Learned counsel for the itioners argued that the petitioner Saw Miil nce 1969 at the disputed place and the der Section 11 of the Adhiniyam. 1969. and wed. The said land was taken by the te lshwar Singh. Therefore, merely raising dispute regarding land by resp ents No.3 to 5, respondent No.2 was not entitled to direct the petitioner to ift the Saw Mill from the existing place and also to refuse the‘renewal of lice e. She further argued that even the iicence fee for the year 2005 has alread been deposited by the petitioner. Learned counsel placed reliance on the ju gment of Gauhati High Court in the matter of M/s. Guru Nanak Saw Mill vs. tate of Assam and others reported in AIR 1Q88 Gauhati 28. was established and operating petitioner Saw Mill is registered licence is being continuously netitioner from owner of the land h r r w n e“ e n e ‘t o a i t p t i u e r a o d h «XI-H022 $303 No.3 to 5 have raised dispute reg rding the iand where the Saw Mi,“ is existing, that is why respondent No2 askedgthe petitione! to shift the Saw Miii. Learned] counsei for respojndents No.3 to 5 argued that respondents No.3 to 5 have become ownerd of the land in question on the basis of retinquishment deed issued by Late ishwar Singh on 5-3-1974. tn view of the above factsj the question which arises for determination before this Court is whether on aiccount of the dispute raised by respondents No.3 to 5 in respect ofthe Sand in ifquestion, respondent No.2 is entitled to direct the petitioner to shift the Saw Miii from the existing place and aiso to refuse renewal or the iicence it nas n04 been disputed that the petitioner Saw Miii is operatind at the land in questionismce 1969 and the petitioner Saw Miii has been registered under Section t1 of the Adhmiyam, 1969. it is also not 1989. The iegai heirs of Late lsrwar Sing‘n on being asked by the Municipai Councii to pay the tax moved art application Annexure P-S before the Chief iviunicipai Officer, Municipai Counizil, Baiod to collect the municipai tax from the persons who are in possessioni of the land in question. Since then the petitioner is reduiarly pay the munipipai tax she claim raised bv respondents No to s is that they have become owners of the land in question orig account of execution of reiinquishment deed by Late lshwar Singh in the yeair 1974i Therefore, even if that document irelinquishment deed\ for the argtiment sake is said to be executed in favour of respondents No3 to o but the petitioner is in possesswn of the iand in question much before Li‘at and the oaw Mili was alreadv established and Was operating before i914 With the consent and permission of original land lord and On the other hand, iearnedJPanei Lawyer argued that since respondents disputed that the petitioner Saw Mitt licence is being renewed year to year since i the petitioner is in peaceful possession since then. Therefore, mereiy by raising dispute by respondents No.3 to 5, respondent No.2 is not legaiiy authorized to ask the petitioner to shift the Saw N iii from the existing place and also to refuse renewal of licence on that ground. Respondents No.3 to 5, if they w'ant to avail any legal remedy whichever is available to them under the law. they are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for appropriate relief as they are entitled under the law. Without fo lowing the due process of law respondents No.3 to 5 are not entitled to evict the petitioner in such a manner with the assistance and help of respondent No.2. whose duty under the relevant law is to enforce the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Kashtha Chiran Winiyaman) Adhlniyam. 1984. and the Chhat L. arh Kashtha Chiran Winiyaman) Niyam‘ 1984, and not to involve in the dis Ute between the parties. For this View l am fortified by the decision of the Ga hati High Court in the matter of M/s. Guru Nanak (supra), in which the Divisi n Bench of the Gauhati High Court in similar facts and circumstanoes held th ”pendenoy of a civii suit about lease in respect of land on which saw mill situated couid not be a sufficient ground to refuse renewal of license”. Facts f that case were that the owner of the Saw Mill took the land on lease from the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.5 to 11 in 1966 for the purpose of setting up and running a saw mill: and in pursuance to that the Saw Mill set up and was running. The Divisionai Forest Officer. Nowgong Division Nowgong asked the petitioner to submit document regarding the piot of lan whereupon the miil was situated When the petitioner was not able to produ the documents then he ordered that the petitioner Saw Mill licence would ot renewed. The said action was taken by the Divisionai Forest Officer at t instance of the petitioner‘s iandlord. On those facts, the Court held that “the question of subsistence of the lease should i t' g a i w s c h XI—HC-22 @l mm 2005 W mam mm mm Wamaxw _ ’ WW§WW 5 égmanw XI—HC—22 @ mam WW&‘WM WW mmatw _é~ 35mm mw be considered only inscfer as if was necessary for the purpose of confinuar’ion of possession of the petitioner in respect of the land whereupon the mill was situated In deciding the dispute between the lend and the tenant in respect of the lease the Forest Ofticia/s shoufd in no way act in aid of the land/01d as such". It is further held that “the perrdency of the civil suit does not ipso facto terminate the lease. Whether the lease was terminated or not would be decided by the Civil Court and unless that is done the officer, who granted the thence on the basis of the lease of t land, cannot reasonably refuse to renew the licence on the ground of mere pe dency of the dispate". Similarty, in the present ca e atso ti“ the dispute was raised by [espondents No.3 to 5 the petitioner s in peacefui possession and the Saw . iii was running without any objec'on. The Saw Mil was set up with the onsent and agreemeht of originai I iord Late lshwar Singh. The petitioner is guiariy paying tax to the municipa and hie licence is also being renewed guiarly from year to year. Theref e, uniess respondents No.3 to 5 obtain rdere regarding eviction of the petiti ner from a competent Court or authority, r spondent No.2 is not entitied to dir ct the petitioner to shift the Saw Miii from t e existing piace and he cannot ais refuse renewai of ticence so tong as the aw Mill is existing there and so long s the petitioner $ abide by the conditions the iicence and other iegai provisio s of the Adhiniyam. 1969, and the Rules ads under the Adhiniyam, 1984. duty of respondent No.2 is to ensure c mpliance of the Chhattisgarh Kasht a Chiran {Vinivamani Adhiniyam‘ 1984', a d the Rules made underthe Adhiniy m, 1984 The facts of W.P.Noi647f2005 re baee%n similar and this Saw Mill is a o existing on the same Khasra on t e adjoining land since 1960‘ Their case is also that they tookthe land in questi ' from Late lshwar Singh. h a a i' e also existing since 1964 on the same Khasra. estabiished after taking the Iand from Li Facts of W.P‘No.649/2005 are a :he iand bearing same Khasra and tr since 1977. in aii the above three cases alsr0 respondents No.3 to 5 have objected the possession of the petitioners. Therefore: in view of the abo allowed. The orders directing the pet: 2005 are quashed and respondent r ticence of the petitioners on its own dispute regarding the land in question No.3 to 5. apy of this order. Sd/- Parties are entitled for certified c: L.C.BHADOO Judge This Saw Mill was also ite ishwar Singh. iso same and this Mill is also existing on eir case is also that the Mill is working ve, the petitions of the petitioners are tioners to shift the Saw Mill dated 24-1- 402 is directed to consider renewal of merits without taking into account the between the petitioners and respondents XIAHC 7R maaa’la a,'t( _ Wm w ?6Q’b m zoo S m m (mam Maw Hanmm mmwg‘—dm _ 7 x Wm a ‘ %: Wifwam W aw W.P.No.648/2DD5 is also basec on the same facts and this Saw Mil! is