J \ ii)! _ I . B swt £6 j i a B V V L ‘ ; . H. rm- x I‘M‘”Wl iN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR €JC/‘3ZI/ W.P.(c.) No. 2/ g 200? Smt. Sumitra Devi S/o.— Vamn Kumar Pandey Aged about 47 years R/o.— Village Parchanpal, Tahsil Jagdalpur District Bastar (C..} G Board of Revenue Bilaspur Circuit Court agdalpur District Bastar {C.G.) The Collector Jagdalpur District Bast (C.G.} Gram Panchayat Mahupalbari Through:— Sarpanch Village Parchanpal Tahsil Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) RIT PETITION U/A 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ‘ " ‘\ g Pstitioners VERSUS J ar W $3a HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (C) N0. 21/2007 PETITIONER : Smt. Sumitra Dew’ Versus RESPONDENTS : Board of Revenue rand Others Appearance: Shri Prafull Bharat, counsal fOI the pctitionen Shri B.P. Shanna 'and Shri Kshitiz Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (17.02201 1) Challenge has been made to the order passed by the Collector. Bastar on 18/07/2005 (Annexure P—8) on the complaint of the villagers, setting aside lease of agricultural land granted in favour of petitioner. (2) Petitioner has also challenged Annexure P—9 which is an order passed by the Board of Revenue in his revision holding that since the matter is covered under the Revenue Book Circular, the petitioner should approach the State Government under the relevant provisions ofthe Revenue Book Circular. (3) Undisputedly, petitioner was earlier allotted lease of 0.10 acre for construction'of house and was later on allotted lease of an area as. admeasuring 1.00 ac're bearing khasra No. 3/1Ect situated at Village (Rarchanpal, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar. This subsequent lease ' l \ I x l of 1.00 ’acre was granted under the provisions of The CG. Krishi Prayojan Ke Liye Upayog Ki Ia Rahi Dakhal Rahit Bhoomi Par Bhoomiswami Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana (Vishesh Upabandh) Adhiniyam, 1984. (4) The Villagers themafter made omnplain‘t befare the Collector, Bastar inter-ah'a alleging that the consent of the GTam Panchayat has not been obtained or if any consent has been submitted it is forged. It was also submitted that on the area admeasuring 1.00 acre the cattles of theivillagers used to enjoy drinking water facility as it is ditch which is filled with water during rainy season. A report was submitted by Naib Tahsildar, lagdalpur to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) vide Annexure P-4. It appears that another complaint was made by the villagers vide Annexure P-S on which a second report was submitted by the Naib Tahsildar, Bhanpur Vide Annexure P—6. After receipt ofthis report the Collector issued Show cause notice and thereafter proceeded to pass order (Annemn‘e P-8) canceling lease of 1.00 acre granted in favour of petitioner. Board of Revenue has refused to entertain the revision preferred by the petitioner on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision under Revenue Book Circular. (5) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that verv basis , of the order passed by the Collector is not supported mth any lrevenue record as the subiect land was nevel recorded as Nistari land . l $5 /3’ in the manner rcquired in law under the relevant provisions of the (1G. Land Revanue Code, 1959. (6) He would furthcir submit that no opportunity of hearing was granted at the time of preparation of report by the concerned Naib Tahsildar. He would fhrther submit that once bhoomiswami right has accrued in favour ofpetitioner, cancellation of lease is illegal. (7) Per contra learned counsel for the respondent would argue that no interference in the order passed by the Collector is called for in View of the fact that the villagers are exercising their Nistari right over the land in question and further because of the reason that at the time of grant of patta, consent of the Gram Panchayat was not obtained or that any existing consent was obtained by fraud. (8) On perusal of the lease (AnneXm‘e P-3) it is apparent that the same has been granted under the relevant provisions of the 'Adhiniyam, 1984. Power under CG. Land Revenue Code was not exercised by the allotting authority. Section 4, part 3 of the Revenue Book Circular deals with allotment of agricultural lands. Paragraph 3O of the said part makes a provision that only one appeal can be preferred against order passed by the allotting authority and where the allotment has been made by the Tahsildar/Naib Tahsildar appeal can be preferred before Sub Divisional Officer and when the \- i allotment has been made by the Collector appeal can be preferred l , lbeforelthe Divisional Commissioner within a periodof45 days. i v x l l l rb/ In the present case, the order canceiing lease has been passed by the Collecter, however in View of the provisions contained in paragraph 30 of part 3 of section 4 of Revenue Book Circular, the appropriate authoriiy to deal with the complaint/appeal lodged by the villagers was Sub Divisional Officer. Thus, the order passed by the Collector is without jurisdiction. (10) In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Collector as well as by the Board of Revenue are set aside. Matter is remitted back to the Collector, Bastar who shall make it over to the concerned Sub Divisional Officer for registering an appeal under paragraph 30 of part 3 of Section 4 of Revenue Book'Circular and the said Sub Divisional Officer shall decide the same after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties. While hearing the appeal authority may also obtain fresh report from the Naib Tahsildar after giving due notice to all the interested parties including the petitioner and respondent No.3 (l l) VVith this observation, the instant writ petition is allowed. (l2) Since the matter is pending for last about seven years, it is expected of the Sub Divisional Officer to conclude the enquiry as early as possible and preferably within a. period of six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. (9) Sd/- Praehant Kumar Mishra 5 Judge