\.^JJ 's^£y ^(a? •& -rfc= HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH. BILASPUR DIVISIOK BENCTi: HON'BLESHRI SUNIL KUMARSINHA & KOK'BLB SHRI RAJSSHWAR LAL JKAMWAR^JJ, Writ Appeal Mo. 131 / 2009 APPBLLASTS/ l. Makhanlal, S/o - Rajhans, aged.about 49 years L1Tf1 ^l'i'lUS 2. Ajuram, S/o- Jagdish , aged about 45 years 3. Mohaadas, S/o Prexn aged about 44 years 4. Chainlal Mahar, S/o- Nandya, aged about 43 years AU resident of Villa.ge Nandiya, Tehsfl- Dongargaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) Versus RBSPONDBNTS/ 1. Shri Mangal Das, Dharmadhikari Sadguru Kabir JRESPONDE.NTS} Saheb Samiti, Naadiya, Tehsil- Doagargaon, Distt. Rainandeaon <CG} 2. The CoUector Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon 3, Tehsildar, Dongargaon, District-Rajnandgaoa Writ Appeal U/S 3 (11 ofthe Hieh Court of_CM»attis<si»hAppeal to Bi'yiston Bench Act 200S Preseat: Mr. Aiiup Majumdar, coun.sel for the appeBants. Mr. V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Advocate General for fhe State/respondents 2 & 3 on advaace copy. ORAL - ORDBR (Passsd oa 07.05.2009) The foUowing order of the Court was passcd by Sunil Kuinar Sinha, J. Heard. 2. Beiae aagrieved wifh fhe order dated 9.4.2007. passed bv the leamed Siagle Judge of this Court ia Writ Petition (C) No.2018/07. the appeUaats/petitioners have fited tbis writ appeal. 1"!"»-^. -2- 3. The facts brieflv statied are as under:- Thc respondent No.l filed aa appMcation beforc the Collector, Ramatidsaon for aUotnient of Goveriuaent laad admeasuring 79.94 acres situated ia Viilafie- Nadiya, District- Rajnandgaon. The niatter was traiisferred to Tahsildar for enquiry, which was registered as Revenue Caae No. 01/A- 19(1) Year 2004-05. In the said revenue proceedings, the appeUants/petitioners filed aa objection. Their contention was that tiie said land was declared as surphis land under the provisions of Chliattisgarh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (for short "the Act, 1960"^ aod fhe same was aUotted to San( Kabir Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Nadia for agricultitre purposes. Siuce fhe petitioners were the ineiubers of the said Samiti, therefore, now the laud be aUotted to fhem iu preference to respondent No.l or other peisons. This objection was disiaissed by the Tahsildar 011 fhe ground ttiat on account of defaiilt in perfomiance, the said Scmiiti was dissolved aod the land re-vested in fhe State Goverrunent and ia the said inanuer, it became Govemiaeat land, fherefore, an. aUotment in general fona under the Revenue Book Circular Part-IV-3 would be inade aad no preferential riehts can be clamied OSL fhe basis ofSection 35 ofthe Act, 1960. This order was chaUenged in revision before fhe CoUector ia Revenue Case No. Ol-A/19 (1) year 2005-06. The CoUector also took fhe same view aud disinissed the revision ffled by fhe appeUants/petitione.rs. It is after aU fhis; the appeUaats/petitioners prefen-ed the writ petition, which was disinissed by fhe leamed Siugle Judge. 4. The Revenue Aufhorities as weU as fhe leamed Sic^le Jude took the view fhat the provisions of aUotsnent of surplus land uuder Section 35 of the Act, 1960 caa be exercised oiily once on vesttag of the land iu fbe State Goverrunent. Affcer fhe re- vestiag in fhe said inaaner, ttte Goveminent becoines tlie owner offhe said land and the same is treated as Goveminent land sunpticitor aad fhereafter the provisions of the Revenue Book Circular Part-IV-3 wozild apply . 1» -3- L 5. Chapter VI of the Madhya Pradesh (Chhattisgarh) Cefiing on Aericultural Holdiugs Act, 1960 deals \vith disposal of surplus laad. Section 35 deals wifh the aUotment of siu-plus la&d vested in fhe State Govenunent under the Act, 1960. It provides fhat subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules fi-amed fhereunder surplus land vested iu fhe State under Section 12 sbaU be aUotted in Buniiswami rights to the persons inentioned in fhis Section in the order of priorily as iudicated tberein on payment of premium equivalent to the coinpensation pavable ia respect ofsuch land. 6. A perusal oftiie Section as also the other iudicated provisions of fhe Act, it would be clear that powers for allotment of surplus land vested in fhe Goveniment, under Section 35, caa be exercised only once and if an exigency of re-vesting arises, the uupediment of Sectioa 35 of the Act, 1960 would not be appHed aad the land shaU be treated as ordinaiy Goveminent land and its further aUottuent woiild be permissible iinder the other provisions of law iacluding fhe provisions ofRevenue Book Circular (RBC). 7. The Revenue Authorities as also fhe learaed Singte Judee has taken fhe same view. Therefore, we do not find aay substaace iu this appeal; the appeal is Uable to be dismissed aad is accordingly disiaissed at the adniission staee itsetf. ^ .E' ..' .<is Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge Prs^een