@ if? SEng‘a T’sansh IN THE HIGH COURI OF JUDICATURE AI BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION No. C; (Hi Izoos //Ramani Timbex Mart, Registered Office at Balod, Dist. Durg (C‘G.) Through its Proprietor Shri Narayan Bhai Patel, S/o. Kanji Bhai ?atel, Aged about 50 years, R/o. Ward Na. 10, Balod, District Durg (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Department of Forest antralaya,D.K.S.Bhawae, Raipur (.G) Divl. Forest Officer, Durg Division, Durg(C.G.) Biswas Kumar Yadav, So. Late Shri Durga Pasad Yadav, Smt. Hemlata Yadav, W/o. Late Shri Durga Prasad Yadav, Smt. Damayanti, W/o. Shri Dhananjay Kumar Yadav, Respondents No. 3 to 5 R/o. Jawaharpaa, Balod, District Burg (C..) Krishna Kumar, S/o. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, Shiv Kumar, S/o. Shri Ishwar Singh hakur, Raj Kumar,, So. Shri Ishar Singh Thakur, Smt. Padma, D/o. hri shwar Singh S I Thakur, , M C / r r G T / w // WRIT mTITION UNDER ARTICLE 225/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR XSI$3UANCE OF WRIT IN m NATURE OF CERTIORARII W8! PROHIBITIOR m mR OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS ORDER OR ORDERS DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS /10. Smt. Email Bai, D/o. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, /ll. Helen Bai, D/C. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, /*12. Smt. Manju, D/o. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, ‘) //l3. Smt. Rama, r\ 5f} WE D/o. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, l4. // Smt. Ratna, D/o. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, ,/15. Shakuntala alias Bela, D/o. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, l6. Sanju, 'S/o. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, // 1?. Smt. Urmila, W/o. Late Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, R/o. Parras, Ward No. l, Balod, Tahsil Balod, District Burg (C.G.) 2§-6-2m5 Mrs. Fouzia Mirza. counsel for Mr, Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Law Mr. Santosh Yadu, cuunsel for As the other wr§t petition3 na Mm vs. State of Chhattisgarh and o vs. State of Chhattisgarh and other: Mart vs. State of Chhattisgarh anr {W.P.No.620/2005 Patel Saw Min involving same question of law, thdrefore, all 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 possessron of the iand bearing Kha acres of iand at Patwari Haika No.5r" when the petitioner Saw Mm was 5e question has aiso been constructec ishwar Singh who authorized the pe Milt, and he used to get consideratio Mi“ is in peacefui possession of tl operation since then‘ and that has expenses. The revenue record sh name of landowner Late ishwar Sing further shows the existence of the petitioner Saw Milli On the death of lshwar name of legai heirsgyihich is evident from $ingh the land was mutated in the the petitioners. yer for the State/respondents No1 & 2. respondents No3 to 5. meiy, W.P.No.647/2005 (Laxmi Vijay saw thers); W.P.Not648/2005 (Bharat Saw Miil 5); and W.P.No.649/2005 (Ramani Timber :i others) are similar to this writ petition ‘vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), nce: facts of W.P.No.620/2005 are being that partner of the petitioner Saw Miii is in isra Nos.606,’1 & 606,2. rakba t.iOOf2.?2 i. Tehsil: Balod. District: Durg, since 1969i ; up and a residentiai house on the iand in :1 The said iand was beionging to Late ititioner to estabiish and operate their Saw n in return Since 1969i, the petitioner Saw ie aforesaid land and the $aw Mill is in been set up after incurring considerable ows that the land in question was in the ih which is evident from Annexure P-t. it \ve XIIHC—22 3am,m,fémgi é mm M é W/asr# WWQ’ ..: ......... Mtrg. WW mm WW mmmm WW§WW .. $WW 31%? a fEFIE ‘7”4" wa‘ wQi-z: :1. Fmg €ataw17? 67%;“; W ./Ww} ‘ W mm ‘4 Ta: wfma .-: é: 37W: wrm ’2’ Map Form 8-1 Annexure P-2‘ lnitiail licence for setting up and running of Saw Mill was granted in the year 1969 nd thereafter, continuousiy the Iicence is i being renewed. Copies of iicence; is Annexure P-3. The petitioner was registered under Section 11 of the qhhattisgarh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) % Adhiniyam. 1969, and the registratiop certification is Annexure P-4. The legal heirs of Late lshwar Singh filed apélicatien dated 11-9-2001 (Annexure P-S) i before the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipai Council, Baiod, to the effect that i the tax shouid be coiiect from the person who are in possession Since then, 1 they are paying ail the property tax required by the Municipai Council: Balodt i and no tax is due against them. Respondents No.3 to 5 all of a sudden applied for mutation of the aforesaid land ini their names before the Tehsiidar‘ Balod and the Tehsildar mutated the land in their names without information the petitioner, which was challenged before the Upper Collector, Durg, who : dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the petitioner moved the Revenue Board f before which the matter is pending for bonsideration. For the year 2005. the petitioner has already deposited the fees amount iRs.501/'— on 16-11-2004 for renewal of licence. § Respondents No.3 to 5 filed an appiication before respondent No.2 requesting Thereafter, Copy is Annexure P-‘3. ,therein not to renew the licence of the petitioner Saw Mill. respondent No.2 passed order dated 24—1-2005 (Annexure P-tQ‘) directing the But the ' question of title of land is still pending before the Revenue Board. Therefore. t the pedtioner has prayed for quashment of order dated 24-1-2005 Annexure P- ; 10 and for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to renew 'the licence of the petitioner. ‘ petitioner to transfer the Saw Mill toi another place within i5 days. = ‘ l Return has been filed an behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 in which it has is registeredw under Section 11 of Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969. it has a1so Mill is running under the licence issued by renewed from time to time. Hewever‘ it has turn that there is a dispute in respect of the sting, therefore, respondent No.2 asked the y other undisputed land and his iicence wiii rest to renew the iicencet so the impugned h Ruie 5 of the Chhattisgarh Kastha Chiran a bonafide intention not to eiiow the Saw Miii i for the parties. itioners argued that the petitioner Saw Miii ince 1959 at the disputed piace and the petitioner Saw Miii is registered u der Section 11 of the Adhiniyam, 1969‘ and The said iand was taken by the te lshwar Singh. Therefore. merely raising dispute regarding iand by respo dents No3 to 5, respondent No.2 was not entitled to direct the petitioner to hitt the Saw Miii from the existing piace and also to refuse the renewai of iice e. She further argued that even the iicence fee for the year 2005 has airead been deposited by the petitioner. Learned sounsei placed reliance on the ju gment of Gauhati High COurt in the matter of M/s. Guru Nanak Saw Mill vs. 1988 Gauhati 28. tate of Assam and others reported in AIR not been disputed that the petiti the Chhattisgarh Van Upaj (Vy been admitted that the petitioner respondent No.2 and that is bei been mentionedin para 11 of the iand on which the Saw Mill is petitioner to shift the Saw Mill to be renewed. it is not in oubiic notice was given in accordance iViniyaman) Adhiniyam‘ 1984 wi to run on any disputed land. i have heard learned coun Learned counsel for the o a n e i t s was established and operating p iicence is being continuously r newed. eetitioner from owner of the land r r w ' e n e 't t a :{I-HL-r-r'78 3E W, m, . IfPéZ/O .......... ' § mm (Wu) wt 200 k r mm m \ g _ mm fsém $ aifm sném r Cm the other hand, learned Pane! Lawyer argued that since respondents rding the Sand where the Saw Mi}! is existing! No.3 to 5 have raised dispute reg i that is why respondent N02 askedgthe petitioner to shift the Saw Mill. ‘ Learned] counsel for respondents No.3 to 5 argued that respondents No.3 to 5 have become owner§ of the land in question on the basis of relinquishment deed issued by Late lshwar Singh on 5-3-1974 l ln view of the above facts; the question which arises for determination before this Court is whether on alocount of the dispute raised by respondents . l ‘ No.3 to 5 in respect of the land in 'F‘uestion, respondent No.2 is entitled to direct the petitioner to shift the Saw Mjl from the existing piaoe and also to refuse renewal of the licence. it has no I been disputed that the petitioner Saw Miil is operating at the land in questionisince 1969 and the petitioner Saw Mill has been registered under Section t1 of the Adhlniyam, 1969; it is also not disputed that the petitioner $aw Will licence is being renewed year to year since 1969. The legal heirs of Late ls‘war Singh on being asked by the Municipal Council to pay the tax moved at? application Annexure P-5 before the Chief g Municipai Officer, Municipal Counbil, Baiod to collect the municipal tax from t‘ne persons who are in possessionlof the land in question. Since then the I petitioner is regularly pay the municipal tax. l The claim raised by respdndents No.3 to 5 is that they have become owners of the land in question oni account of execution of reiinquis’nment deed by Late lshwar Singh in the yeafr 197 . Therefore even if that document (relinquishment deed) for the argdment sake is said to be executed in favour of respondents No.3 to 5. but. the: petitioner is in possession of the land in question much before that and the Saw Mlil was already established and was operatinQ before 1974 witl‘’ the cortssnt g t and Permlssion”ii/#5 ofori iral land lord and XI—HC—zz ’ r 3am, WW W <36? N1 U375 A mm.q>éze W 200 5 m WWW WWW 311m Raww K 4‘ r . '1 a 5’1 :«F. ?-"- 3?%*"«. ”a‘gf?¢753?§{ WW Mill took the land on lease from the to 11 in 1966 for the purpose of pursuance to that the Saw Mill we Forest Officer. Nowgong Division, predecessor—in-interest cf respondents No.5 setting up and running a saw mill, and in s set up and was running. The Divisionai Nowgong asked the petitioner to submit document regarding the plot of land whereupon the mili was situated. When the petitioner was not able to produce petitioner saw Mill licence would r the Divisionai Forest Officer at the those facts, the Court held that “the the documents then he ordered that the ot renewed. The said action was taken by instance of the petitioner’s iandlord. Gn question of subsistence of the lease should XIVHC-22 3a 21mm, m, W U38? m WW mm WW mmmw \ 5 r WW§WW %az%mm%w the petitioner is in peacefui possession since then. Therefore. mereiy by raising dispute by respondents No.3 to 5, respondent No.2 is not legally authorized ask the petitioner to shift the Saw Mill from the existing place and also to refuse ‘ . renewal of licence on that ground. Respondents No.3 to 5, if they want to avail ,V 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 Niniy‘aman) Adhiniyam, 1984, and the Chhattisgarh Kashtha Chiran (Viniyaman) Niyam‘ 1984, and not to involve in the dispute between the parties. For this view l am fortified by the decision of the Gathati High Court in the matter of Mls, Guru Nanak (supra), in which the Divisicn Bench of the Gauhati High Court in simiiar facts and circumstances held that “pendency of a civil suit about tease in respect of land on which saw mill is situated could not be a sumcient ground to refuse renewai of license“. Facts of that case were that the owner of the Sew XI-HC—22 mam WW mw —é be considered only insofar as ii was necessary far the purpose of conifnuai’ion of possession of fhe petitioner in respect of the land whereupon fhe mill was situated, In deciding the dispute beiween the /end and the tenant in respecf of £7 , rhe lease z‘he forest Officials shouid in no way aci in aid of I‘he iand/ord as ’ such”. lt is further held that “the perrdency of the civil suit does no! ipso facto V ferminaz‘e fhe lease. Whether fhe lease was terminated or not would be decided by the Civil Court and unless that is done the officer, who granted the ,icence on the basis of the lease of the land, cannot reasonably refuse to renew the iicence on the ground of mere pendency of the dispute“. Similarty, in the present case also ti“ the dispute was raised bv respondents No.3 to 5 the petitioner was in peacefui possession and the Saw Mil! was running without any objectont The Saw Mil was set uo with the consent and agreement of original la ‘ lord Late lshwar Singh The petitioner is ieguiarly paying tax to the municipai' and his iicence is also being renewed regularly from year to year. Theref e, uniess respondents No.3 to 5 obtain orders regarding eviction of the petiti ner from a competent Court or authority, respondent No.2 is not entitled to dir ct the petitioner to shift the Saw Miii from w i the existing place and he cannot alS refuse renewai of iicence so tong as the ,k Saw Mill is existing there and so long s the petitioner; abide by the conditions ' the licence and other iegai provisio s of the Adhiniyami 1969i and the Ruies i ade under the Adhiniyam, 1984. .e duty of respondent No.2 is to ensure mpiiance of the Chhattisgarh Kasht a Chiran (Viniyaman') Adhiniyam. 1984, a d the Rules made under the Adhiniy m: H184 The facts of W.P.Noi64?i‘2005 re beeegen similar and this Saw Mill is a o existing on the same Khasra on t ‘e adjoining land since 1960i Their case is also that they tookthe land in questi ' from Late ishwar SinglL. I.__ </ allowed The orders directing the peti 2005 are quashed and respondent t licence of the petitioners on its own dispute regarding the land in question No.3 to 5. Parties are entitled for certified oiapy of this order. s tioners to shift the Saw Mill dated 24-1- lo,2 is directed to consider renewal of merits without taking into account the between the petitioners and respondents Sd/- L.C.BHAD00 Judge XLHC 78 , WW, WI DJ 1W: a, .m‘ U3 ?6Q’O m 20o S mW (Wu) ammmm ammm ““mm x ‘7* WW‘§@W ammm W.PVNo.648/2DDS is also base: on the same facts and this Saw Mi“ is also existing since 1964 on the same Khasra. This Saw Mill was also , established after taking the land from Lute lshwar Singh. Facts of W.P.No.649/2005 are also same and this Mill is also existing on me land beaiing same Khasra and tl‘eir case is also that the Mill ls working since 1977. ln all the above three cases also respondents No.3 to 5 have objected the possession of the petitioners. Therefore: in View of the above, the petitions of the petitioners are