y.sss^.s-^ssss^ssss^^^'^^^ gree^s s» BB'ggft •S g3|qij c ^ •I.- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOF C. G. AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) N0. "bSLS~^ OF 2010 gi^ PETITIONER Revisioner / Smt. Jhima Bai, W/o Vikram Singh, aged about^years, Caste-Kshatriya, R/o Village- Ranidongari, Tahsil-Charama, District-North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS Non-aDplicant ^' \^.p$>- .^CK%^- .^' ve^- A.^.S1" ,'-'•'' i-^" :1. Smt. Purain Bai, Wd/o Jageshwar, Caste-Kshatriya, R/o Village-Ranidongari, Tahsil- Charama, District-North Bastar Kanker(C.G.) <31?-%3.^" _.•••"' .,'?.. 1 '?..••" ..•""" •«;'si" c.'.-•'' /' -••?•'",•.„<" \ .'?•"" State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Revenue Board, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Circuit Court Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Additional Collector, Kanker, District-Kanker (C.G.) ,- 5. Tahsildar, Charama, District- Kanker(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ fflGH COURT OF CIfflATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition (227) No. 3237/2010 : Smt. Jhima Bai Versus : Smt Purain Bai and others Appearance: Shri D.N. Prajapati, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, PL for the State. ^ WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ENDIA ORAL O'RDER (19.11.2010) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 3 July, 2009 (Annexure P-1) dismissing her revision which was preferred against the order passed by the Additional Collector, Kanker on 19/03/2008. The dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.l is with respect to grant of abadi patta on abadi land bearing khasra No.367/9, Village Ranidongri, Tahsil Charama, District Kanker. It appears on the basis of sun'ey report submitted before the Gram Panchayat lease of abadi land admeasuring 12414 sq.ft. was issued in favour of petitioner by Tahsildar Charama. The respondent No.l submitted a representation/complaint before Gram Panchayat initially on 20 August 2001 and thereafter before the Tahsildar on 11/09/2001 alleging in-egularity and deliberate omission ofher name from the survey list ofthe persons entitled to obtain lease ^ L/ of abadi land. In the said application it was mentioned that on the subject land tfaree families namely Purain Bai, Jhima Bai and Khamman Singh were jointly residing as they belong to joint family, however name of Jhima Bai and Khamnan Singh has been recommended for grant oflease ofabadi land which is illegal and that on the basis of possession her name also deserves to be enlisted and lease ofabadi land should allowed. It was put forth by the respondent No.l that to avoid apportionment ofland and partition in future Shri Vikram Singh, husband ofJhima Bai has managed to obtain lease by omitting her name which came to her knowledge when the matter was talked about in the village and she has moved an application before the Gram Panchayat on 20 August 2001. Respondent No.l also highlighted that except the subject piece ofland she has no place ofresidence in the village and therefore her name should be included in the lease granted in favour of Jhima Bai and Khamman Singh. It further appears that on this application a spot inspection was carried on by the Halka Patwari and Sarpanch on 15/09/2001 in the presence ofvillagers and a report was submitted vide Annexure R-4, wherein it has been mentioned that Purain Bai's ancestral house is located on the subject land where her son Vinod Singh is operating a Kirana Shop. (2) It is to be noted that inspite of submission of spot inspection report on 15/09/2001 and during pendency ofPurain Bai's complaint before the Tahsildar on 11/09/2001 and before the Gram Panchayat -3 6< on 20/08/2001 the order regarding grant of lease in favour of petitioner was issued on 25/09/2001. After the said spot inspection name of respondent No. 1 was included and mentioned in the lease Sranted in favour of petitioner against which a revision petition was preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Colleetor which came to be dismissed by order dated 19/03/2008 (Annexure P-3). The order has been confirmed by the Board of Revenue vide Annexure P- 1. (3) It has been argued by Shri Prajapati leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner that before correcting and inserting name of respondent No. 1 in the lease the petitioner was not noticed, therefore there is violation of principles of natural justice and the order including the name ofrespondent No.l in the lease deserves to be set aside. (4) Leamed State counsel would submit that on the basis of spot inspection Annexure R-4 in which the respondent No. 1 was found to be in possession of the subject land, her name has been recorded in the lease and Ifaus there is no illegality in the order and the petition deserves to be dismissed. (5) From the documents submitted along with the writ petition and tlie retum, it would appear that respondent No.l was also in possession of part of the subject land for which the lease has been [ granted in favour ofpetitioner only and the said fact is proved by the yspot inspection Annexure R-4, however at the same time the _J ^ lr~ *..; -^^-: ^ ^ petitioner should have been noticed before inclusion of name of respondent No. 1 in the lease granted in favour ofpetitioner. (6) In view ofthe above, it is directed that the concemed Tahsildar shall issue notice to the petitioner before including the name of respondent No.l in the lease granted to the petitioner and hear her version before finalising the issue regarding grant of lease in favour ofrespondent No.l or for apportionment ofthe total land for grant of separate leases in the name ofpetitioner and respondent No.l. (7) With this observation, the instant petition stands disposed of. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge I^A