4/’ é) L, {4 $m§§g Emmi! W/ 1 (t9 IN T#E HIGH COURT OF JUCAEURE DI AT BILHSPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION No. £26 /2oo5 PETITIONER Patel Saw Mill, Registered Office at Balod, Dist. Burg (C.G.) Through its Partner Shri KTimji Bhai Patel, 8/0. Late Shri Devshi Bhai Patel, Aged about 55 years, RIG. Ward No. 10, Balod, District Durg {c.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, / ThrOugh its Secretary, Department of ForeSt, Mantralaya,D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur {c.G) RESPONDENTS Divl. Forest Officer,gURG‘~b\m$m“ Burg {CTG.) Biswas Kumar Yadav, $/0. Late Shti Durga Prasad Yadav, / Smt. Hemlata Yadav, W/a. Late shri Durga/ Prasad Yadav, K Smt. Damayanti, W/o. Shri §hananjay Kumar Yadav, Respondents No. 3 to 5 R/O. Jawaharpara, Balad, District Durg (C.G.) Kriahna Kumar, S/o. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, ShiV‘Kumar, S/o. Shri :shwar Singh Thakur, Raj Kumar, S/o. Shri ishwar Siagh Thakur, Smt. Padma, D/O. Shri IShwar Singh Thakur, / @ Smt. Shail Bai, D/a. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, Helen Bai, D/o. Shri Ishw3r Singh Thakur, Smt. Manju, D/o. Shri ishwar Singh Thakur, $mt. Rama, D/o. Shri ishwa£ Si gh Thakur, Smt‘ Ratna, D/o. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, Shakuntalavalias Bela, D/Q. Shri ishwar Singh Thakur,' Sanju, S/o. Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, 'Smt.'Urmi1a, W/o. Late.Shri Ishwar Singh Thakur, 7 RIO; Parras, Ward Na. Balod, Tahsil Balod, -District Burg (C.G.) //, “Respondents No. 6 t0 1 1, IT XI-HC—22 @ mm,m,m WW WWQSFé20m 200 S ‘ muumnn..uunu..t WW maf%a WW WW QKWW \Lw 2Q-S-2 &5 Mrs‘. Fouzia Mirza. counsei for the petitioners. Mr. Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. $antosh Yadu, caunsel for respondents No.3 to 5. As the other writ petitions eiy. W.P.Noeé47/2005 (Laxmi Vijay Saw Mill vs. State of Chhattisgarh and hers): W.P.Ne.648/2005 (Bharat Saw Mi" vs, State of Chhattisgarh and other ); and W;P.Ne.649/2005 (Ramant Timber Mart vs. State of Chhattisgarh an ethere} are simiiar to this writ petition (W.P.No.620/2005'Patet Saw Miil vs. State of Chhattisgérh and others), invniving same question of law, th refore, all the four writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of conveni nce, facts of W.P.No.620l2005 are being mentioned herewith The case of the petitioner is hat partner of the petitioner Saw Mil! is in possession of the iand bearing Kh sra Nos.606/1 & 606/2, rakba 1.100/2J2 acres of [and at Patwari Haika No.5/ , Tehsil: Baiod, District; Durg, since 1969. ’when the petitioner Saw Miil was se up and a residential house on the land in question has aiso been construct . The said iand was belonging to Late ishwar Singh who authorized the p titioner to establish and operate their saw Miil, and he used to get considerati in return. 3ince 1969, the petitioner Saw Miii is ih peacefui possession of t e aforesaid land and the Saw Miii. is in operation since then, and that has been set up after incurring considerable expenses. The revenue record sh ws that the land in question was in the name of landowner Late lshwar Sin h which is evident from Annexure P-i. it further shows the existence of the p titioner 5aw Mill. On the death of tshwar Singh the land was mutated in the ame of legal heirs, which is evident from l\ n m e o I XLHC 78 3W: w 1%:aw'aa; "(MT aka“ ’éwkh WW WW m“y< u Wa W3» (Ww {mnw Q??? m i WWWW w fglii \wrgu 31%? Ww Map Form B-1 Annexure P-2. lnmai! Incence far setting up and running of Saw Mm was granted in the year 1969 nd thereafier, continuougly the licence is being renewed. Copies of licence; is Annexure P-3. The petitioner was «-m.,. mmama w registered under Section 'H of the #hhattisgarh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) 3 Adhiniyam‘ 1969, and the registratioé‘w certification is Annexure P-4. The legal heirs of Late ishwat Singh med ap iication dated 11-9-2001 (Annexure P-5) befere the Chief Municipai Ofhcer,unicipai Council, Balotl, to the effect that the tax should be collect from the p rson who are in possession. Since then, they are graying all the property tax tequired by the Municipal Council: Belod, and no tax is due against them. Res ondents No.3 to 5 all of a sudden applied for mutation of the aforesaid land initheir names before the Tehsildar. Balod nd the Tehsildar mutated the Ian in their names without information the petitioner, which was challenged @efore the Upper Collector. Durg‘ who oismiseed the appeai. Therefore, the petitioner moved the Revenue Board before which the matter is pending for eonsideration ror the year 2005 the petitionger has already deposrted the fees amount Rs 501I- on 1641—2004 for renewal of licence bopy is Annexure Pa .' a Pespondents No to 5 filed an applibation before respondent No 2 requesting t therein not to renew the licence of the petitioner Saw Mill Thereafter a responoent No 2 passed order dated r24— 2005 (Annexure P40) directing the n petitioner to transter the Saw Miil to another place Within 15 days But the i question of titie of land i till pending before the Revenue Board Therefore “the oetitioner has prayed for quashmént of order dated 24 1 2005 Annexure P- : 10 and for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to renew g the licence of the petitioner F i a i agate; ' i i x XE—HC—JE mafsasnaw \ 3 K WW wW Return has been filed on alf of respandents No 4 & 2 ih which it has is registered W under Section 11 of Viniyaman) Aehiniyam, 196$. it has alea Mili is running under the licence issued by respondent No.2 and that is bei renewed from time to time. Hewever, it has been mentioned-in para 11 0f the eturn that there is a dispute in respect 0f the iand en which the Saw Miii is e‘ isting, therefore, reepondent Ne.2 asked the petitioner to shift the Saw Miii to ny other undisputed land and his iicence wiii be renewed. t ie not in public i erest tc renew the licence, so the impugned notice was given in accerdance in ith Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Kastha Chiran aViniyaman) Adhiniyam. 1984 wit a bonahde intention not to ailow the 3aw Milt to run on any disputed iand‘ Learned couneel for the p titionere argued that the petitiener Saw Miii was eetablished and operating nce 1969 at the disputed place and the petitioner Saw Mill is registered u der Section 11 of the Adhiniyam. 1969, and iicence is being continuously r newed. The said land was taken bythe eetitioner from owner of the land ate ishwar Singh. Therefore, mereiy raising dispute regarding iand by respo dents No.3 to 5, respondent No.2 was not. entitled to direct the petitioner to hift the Saw Miil from the existing place and aiso 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 pieced relianoe on the ju gment of Gauhati High Court in the matter of Wife. Guru Nanak Saw Milt vs. 1988 Gauhati 28. not been disputed that the petiti the Chhattisgarh Van Upaj (Vy been admitted that the petitioner i have heard learned couns ifor the parties; tate of Assam and others reported in AIR b h o a w n r r .i XI—HC—22 mam lawE—h HI%E WW§fgrérmA %31f—?man%w a Gn the other hand, ieamed Pane! Lawyer argued that since respondenis N03 to 5 have raised dispute rage rding the land where the Saw Mi}! is existing, that is why respondent No.2 asked the petiticner to shift the Saw Mill. Learned] counsei for respcindents No.3 to 5 argued that respondents No.3 to 5 have became owner of the land in question on the basis of reiinquishment deed issued by Late lshwar Singh 0h 5-3-1974. in View of the abeve facte, the question which arises for determination ' before this Court is whether on a'ccount of the dispute raised by respondents No.3 to 5 in respect of the iand in uestion, respondent No2 is entitled to direct I the petitioner to shift the Saw Mi frem the existing piaee and, also to refuse renewal of the licence. it has not]! been disputed that the petitioner Saw Mill is operating at the land in question since 1969 and the petitioner Saw Mill has been registered under Section 1 of the Adhiniyami 1969. it is else not disputed that the petitioner Saw Mill licenee is being renewed year to year since 1969. The legal heirs of Late ls war $ingh on being asked by the Municipal Council to pay the tax moved a application Annexure P-5 before the Chief ' iviunicipal Officer, Municipal Counpil, Balod to collect the municipal tax from the persons who are in possession of the land in question. since then the petitioner is reguiariy pay the muni ipai tax. . The claim raised by resp ndents No.3 to 5 is that they have become ' owners of the land in question on account of execution of reiinquishment deed by Late lshwar Singh in the ye r 19?4. Therefore, even if that document (relinquishment deed) for the erg ment sake is said to be executed in favour of respondents No.3 to 5, but, th petitioner is in possession of the iand in question much before that and t e Saw Mill was already established and was lsent and permission of originai iand lord, and operating before 1974 with the co l l 5114 XI-HC—22 mam maw ma1%?r WW&'F§Q§W .‘g r $WW w ¥ the petitioner is in peaceful possession since ihen. Therefore, mereiy by raising dispute by respondents No.3 to 5, respondent No.2 is not legaily authorized to ask the petitioner to shift the $aw Mi" from the existing place and also to refuse renewai of licence on’ that ground. Respcndente No.3 to 5, if they want to avaii any iegai remedy whichever is availabie 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 enforee the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Kashtha Chiran (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam. 1984, and the Chhat arh Kashtha Chiran Winiyaman) Niyam, 1984, and not to invoive 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 Mis. Guru hanak (supra), in which the Divisi n Bench of the Gauhati High Court in simiiar facts and circumstances held tha “pendency of a civii suit about lease in respect of land on which saw mill i situated could 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 miil, and in pursuance to that the Saw Mill w s set up and was running. The Divisionai Forest Officer, Nowgong Division, Nowgong asked. the petitioner to submit document regarding the-plot of land whereupon the mill was situated. When the petitioner was not able to produc the documents then he ordered that the DetltiOnel’ saw Mill licence would 0t renewed. The $ald aCIlOn W85 taker'l bV the Divisional Forest Officer at t instance of the petitioner's tandlord. On those facts, the Court held that “the question of subsistence of the lease should t" g h XI-HC—22 The facts of W.P.No.647l200_5 re baeewon similar and this Saw Mill is a o existing on the same Khasra on t e adjoining land since 1960. Their case is also that they took the land in questio from Late lshwar Singh. mm WW mmatw _g b wgwm ' > be considered anly insofar as if was necessary for fhe purpose of confinuafion of possession of ihe petifioner in respect of the land whereupon the mill was sifuated. In deciding the dispute befween the land and fhe fenant' in respeci (he lease the Forest oniciais should in no way act in aid of fhe landlord as L such”. It is further heid that “the per'dency‘of the civil suit does noi‘ ipso facz‘o *erminate the lease. Whefher ihe lease was terminated or not would be decided by the CiVfl by Court and unless mat is done the on‘icer, who granted‘the {icence on the basis of the lease of tn land, cannot reasonably refuse to renew he licence the on ground ofmere pe dency of the dispute”. Similarly, in the present Yea e also ti” the dispute was raised by espo’ndents No.3 to 5 the petitioner as in peaceful possessian and the Saw Iiil was running without any objecton. The Saw Mil was set up with the onsent and agreement of ongmai Ian iord Late ishwar Singh The petitioner is guiariy paying tax to the municipai and his licence is also being renewed guiarly from year to year. Theref re, unless respondents No.3 to 5 obtain rders regarding eviction of the petiti ner from a competent Court or authority, r spondent No.2 is not entitled to dir ct the petitioner to shift the Saw Miii from X ’ t e existing place and he cannot als refuse renewai of licence so long as the aw Mill is existing there and so long s the petitioner$ abide by the conditions the licence and other legal provisio s of the Adhiniyam, 196§, and the Rules ade under the Adhiniyam, 1984. e duty of respondent No.2 is to ensure o mpiiance of mpiiance of the Chhattisgarh Kasht a Chiran {Viniyamam Adhiniyam, 1984, a d the Rules made under the Adhiniy m, ‘198ki;eeeee rx 2 ,a “e I, ‘ff: u ‘ w ¢ Q \y s , N Q‘ 3 XLHC—78 Wm w 'vég’o m zoo S m W (Wu) . Em ‘ $113? faw mmm K K WW W“ W 7 awwm $aif§w mam .W.P.No.648/2DG5 is also basec an the same facts and this $aw Mi“ is aiso existing since 1964 on the sa‘ e Khasra. This $aw Miii was aisa established after taking the land from L Facts of W.P;No.649f2005 are z isa same and this Miii is aiso existing on the land bearing same Khasra and their case is also that the Mill is working since 1977. in all the above three cases aisle respendenis No.3 to 5 have ’objected Ithe possession of the petitioners. Therefoi’e: in View of the above, the petitions of the petitioners are ailowed. The orders directing the petitioners to shitt the Saw Mill dated 24-1- 2005 are quashed and respondent No.2 is directed to consider renewai of licence of the petitioners on its own merits without taking into account the dispute regarding the land in question between the petitioners and respondents No.3 to 5. Parties are entitled for certified copy of this order. te lshwar Singh. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge