3EN THB HISH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT B31ASPUR Writ Petitioa No. ~L7eG /20Q2. PETITIONERS s (1) S.R.Nayalc, aged 32 years, S/o BhaFaai Lal Nayak, R/oT.P.Nagar, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.). (2) sasbil Kumar Agrawal, aged 28 yrs,! S/p Vishnu Prasad Agrawal, i^ R/o Banihnidlh, Tab. C3iampa, ' Oistto J'anjgtc-Oaampa (C.G.). i VE R S US RESPONBEH'ES .,-'';/•"' ..•/' •^w^--^ 8^2^S <lrfyn""/<f«i" ;^^^ '.^^' v^ (1) State o£ aalaattisgarh •Biroagh s Secretary, , Revenue Deptt. D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (C.O.). (2) Collector, Janjgir-Qiaii^a (C.G.). (3) C.L.Markandey, Nayab Tahsildar, Champa Distt. Janjgir-Ghampa (C.G.) (4) Chairna&, Chhattisgarh Electricity Board, H/a - Raipur (e.G.). (5) Kallash Sabre, S/o Budgoe Sahre, R/o Bamb.n.tdJLh, Tab. - CtoaH^a Distt. Janjgir-Cbampa (C.G.). WK.I7 PETITXON tSSBES. ARTICLE 2267227 O? THE CONSTITUTION Qf_WDI_hfQS. ISSUANCEOF_WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS ETC. AND OR THE OTHEB. WRZT OR WRIT5/ORDER. DIREeTXONS s XI-HC-22 an^r^r feNisn^r ShHI'ti NiflfitT I'rs^^: \^ 3sr ^wi<i<<, ®Tfiu'i6,Rciiy^< 311^1 M5|ch Uj. f.^° , 1 "^oo *li*<Mlsnil<»)"""••••••••"•••"^ 200 2— ^<><A sn^TSRnwnf^cT DIVISIONBENCH: HON'BLESHRIA.K;PATNAIK,0J & HON'O^ SHR1 FAKHRUDDIItl. J. 18/03/2005:. Heard Mr. Hanufna& peliUoners, Mr. Pramod Venna, State of ChhaBisgarh, Mr. R.S. J| No.4and Mr. AshokVerma, Pralsad teamlBd ^rawat l^med counsel for the ^amed Addl. Advocats ©eneral.forttie l|aiswal, teamed cainset fer rwponctent counselfor respondent No.5. encroacHed Taha'Hiar Twowrit peBtioners have| petftton is that respondent No.5] Khasra No.258,319 and 320. petWon is ttiat the conceme|d respondent No.5 had encroachment lepon, the Case N0.52-A/68/98-S9 under ge Code, 1959 ftiereinafter to be notice to respondent No.5. the Tahsildar, Champa passed| onty and directsd him to r< Govemment land and thereaH^r 1Q/03^0X) that respondent No.^ the Government land. Again encroachment report to ttie Khasra Nos.258 and 319 anfl Encroachment Case No.Z-A WqfepftT WRffif fei^ dSRZTC ^sri^Tan^T Ifited ttiis P.I.L. Thwr ca®ein the wrtt has sncRached Govemment land ta F|urther case of ttie peUfionere In the writ Patwari submittel a report fcat Khasra No.258 and on ttre said ha'Hiar, Ghampa registsred EnGroachment gection 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue (eferred to as 'ff»e Cocte') and issued Re^pondent No.5 appeared but ulUmately |an order hnposii^ a fine of Rs^OQ/- ^move ttio encroaGhnwnt from the the concemed fatwari reported on had removed the ancroachnBent from |the concerned Patwari submWed fl» respondent No.5 had encroaahwl fte Tahsildar, Cham|» regi^red 6842000-01 againsl respondent No.5 and (^^f^) effectthat g XI-HC-22 3TI^?T^T R-<i+3TI^T sbli<t>d1^(T ..iiistllg i^lltS118- "^. 3^ '<ll<<K'l'i|, CTTnti'ls, R|dlU^< 311^1 MSI^) . LO' P.^o. f^-ftO II*ICTI sn<iiq>'"'"'""""""""" ^ 2002— fafc^ sii^i gwiwofer c<>st fllrt fte e Tahsiklar thereafter imposed a fine of Rs.1[ encroachment In a week's fin», remove the san» at Its own respondent No.5 as land reveni despite the said orders passejd Champa.respondentNo.StUd Gtwernment land. In the cir<| demoli^ied Ihe structure on demolitlon of ttie stmcture on encroached the land in Khasra flfiade a complaint to the and pra^d for relief befere the insfructkwis of the Tahsildar,| ®ncr<»ichmentrepdrt on registBred fresh Encroachment action has been taken in the statect that thstend in Khasra Not 1929-30 is aieant for tise as I continues to encroach'the saidl teind in Khasra N&.320 and is ^grieved, the (wtUioriere 1iave| direcUon to the Govemment to| respondent No.5 as soon as Dhaimashda. The peBtioners tryitig =hl<ll<l41-f H11ftT^tecit<Fa]«K ^isif^iiTsn^r llOQQ/-and directed'lilmtorenKnwthe Ifalltng whtoh ftw Govemmant was to whlch was to be recovered ftom i|e. The peBUoners have all^ed that on ;22«BQ001 toy the ^Eahsildar, remwa the enCToachment from the ttwndances, the Tahsitdar, Otrampa landon 13^6/20)1. But adter sakl tand, respondent No.5 a^ln l|tos: 258 ancL 318 aiwl p^ttaier No.2 t|ar, Ghampa agalnst respondent No.5 [Tahsildar, Champa. d'UBsuant to tte »Ae 'concemad Patwari 'submitted and the TahsNdar, -Champa rTto.T3-A88S(X)1-02t»utasy^no case. The p^iUoners.lisu®ftultwr t319sKp8(-Goven'im8rrtlaBdj!ecarAe( |iDharmashata, Aut raspondeirt No5 Ifand and tfie connected Gwemment toflll upthewettwtKhasraNo.320. 1 filed this writ-petitioR praylng for a reallze ttie cost of ctemolitton from d>ossibl& and to restore the land for ate®prayedthatrespmdertNo.® 20A)ilffi001 C|asy sald Nav& (<ft^^^) XI-HC-22 an^rqir !s-f 3I1^T sniiicb trf^cT l,j y- ^':!r!;: .,.„ ^» jj^ 3^ •<ii<iid<<, ®Tn*i'i6,RKniuy 3ll^l Msich —....°°'. ?; -Mo'.. .'.'3- &o 111CTI a)t(|q, •••••••••••••••••••••• gq- 2002— f^% aii^i ^kiimsrfN' AfeslGB appljed Ratwari Respondent No5 has awnfflchKl Khaara No>558. statBdttiatKhasraNo.3T9isa the provisions ofthe Code, No.5 and respoiKlent No.5 alh^ng him Khasrg No.319 for| respondent No.5 has furtherstat^d SaMw recommended tti®cass Inspectorand the concemed such altotmentof Khasra No.319| dkl not pass any order on the allotment of said Khasra N0.31S pending bcforethis Gourt; retum that the pedtfoners have they have no (ocus sfeuxA" to partlcular itis ^ated n ttie retur^ does npt betong to Viltage to petifien just to harass res(»nder^ alleged intheretumtt'atfWttBon^' personal gwdge and enmity aga) false peUUon in the shape ofPubl| Mr. Hanuman Prasad the petitioners vehemently Village Bamnidih betongs to the| Dharnmshalaand a &is Stand isl qil<lfl'l41-< 111(lTffte^<Fa|«K ^3lR|IT3T|^T flted' a retum denying ftat her has^ Injttie sald rrtiufn, respondent No.5 has plece <rf Pracfta/ff Afeadi' land and Under Afes|GB totKl can be alktftsdto respondert before <he Tahsildar, Shaflapa for jhis personal use. tn fce said retum, diatttie Gram Panchayat »KlGtam ^respondent No.5, and 'the tovenue Ratwari issued no objectton CCTfflcsto to |tD res(»ndenthto.5. But the Tahsildar ^ppli<»tk»nof respondent No5 for the |9 on tt»ground that the case was ResitondentNo.5 has further^atedinthe this writ p^Uon dueto enmlty and Iflto this Public Interest UUgatBn. In ttaat pefitionw No.1 Shri S.R. htayak Btimnidih and ttKit he has fltod the writ nder^ No.5. Responctent No.5 has furttier i^r No.2 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal has jnstr^pondentNo.SaRdtKsfltedtttls (c Interest Lttig^ion. Adrawat, Adrawat, tearned coun^ appearins fcr subntits that the land in Ktasra No.319 In IStete Govemment and fe m«mtfor a locatsd near the sakl tand and despite (^^ir) .^-22 sn^r^r fewsn^r Sbtlitiflf^tT .iEgSC! r-^-' ^ 3^'Hnqi^pT, siTl1<ns,ls)c1iyj< 3ii3i,'l<4^c»i {jj' f.fOo, ^oo *IIIOTI !,n*iit»»"••••••"•"•••••••• ^ 200^— 311^1 ^WIW^tT timt requests made from time to the govemment is not teiklng said land and respondent No.5 He has prayed ttiat a dlrecUo|n respondent No.5 from tha land said land. by the viUaBers of Village tomnldih, , to construct a IMianashala en the Ikas besn allowed te enciaach Uie land. be given to the State to remove tnd to construct a arme®hsdaon fte team^d Viltlage ffl4ri Wlitt Mr. Ashok Verma, No.5, on the other hand, submiy ViUage Bamnidih and has no A|x r^pect of a land whksh is In the petitioner No.2 has personal| No.5 and therefore, he ha® vehemenfly argued that this should not beeirtertained by flijs umtetSectton 244 ofthe K4.PJ corresponding provision in ttie Tahsildar has the pewer tQ submits ttiat since rrepondsnl allotment of Khasra No.319 N Champa, and ttie Gram Panc( recommendattons in favour ofl InspeetoE and Patwan hadalse) Khasra No.319 in favour of should have first passed ontersl for allotenent of Khasra No.319 «bi<i(<i<n-<ii*«'iT^te<A<Ri«;i<. ^isrf^iTan^T i^d counsd appMrtng tor respondent thatfletittoner No.1 is nota B^Uwt <rf i|?cu®sfendt to file tttis wifc petlfion in Bamnktlh. He ftirthersubmltethat |gru<t|eandennHtya®ah>^respondent thls Rublic Interwt LiBgaton. He petWon Med by the two petiUonere |s Court. Mr. Verma nsxtsubmMs that Land Revenue Goda, 1959 and Uie ihhattisgarh^Land Revenue Gode, the of sttre in-th®Afesdf afes. He No.5 had mads an ap{rflcaUon for Vaiage Bamnidlh to the TahSiklar, ^ayat or the Gram ^bha haEl made respondent No.5 and tha Rwenue [no objwBon to surii allotinwrt rf said No.5, the TahslldEB-, Champa lonthsapplicatonoFr^iondentNo.S in his fanmur but instesKl^e Tsdtsildar ((l^^l^) dypose "K :ill sn^r^r fiFTWsn^T S»l*i ?lfi(T ai»iw Bgilll IS^ 3^ •*iww^, w-^ww, [^viwy, 3ll^.S?l <4s)ch ^^. I.Al'f. MO' i-)-oo 111CTI shfich """""""'"""" ^ / 200' Ri'b^ 3)1^1 ^kllWBf?(T l|»eannrt(^ssany onters on the said had made an oteenaBon that apptteatton asthls casew^ pen^lmg before ttiis Court. respo|ndenl We find ttiat the Bamnidih and has an inter^l govemment land In ^imnidih^ encroached by any privato Members<rf<he 13uyic<rfthe fitefeis Public Interest Litigafion. No.5 is a resident of Vfllage as sudi a viltager in ensuring ttiat located near ttw Bus Stand is not pe(son so as to cause prejudKis to the sai|l village and hence hastecusstoKlf to belen It is tme Uiat no orderel Champa on the applteatton <rf r< In Vills^e Bamnkllh in favour <^ true that several ordens have of the encroachmertts in Khasra) ordere passed agalnst respond( yetby respondentN&S. Ifthat respondent No.5 haue to be appear not to have taken any from Khasra No.319. We take immediate steps to gh/e| encroachments from Khasra Nt removal ef sireh encroachmeotl should be constructed on the the State Govemment. Thls High Court in exereise of il| Constitution cannot issuea •»ii<<f<i<l1-fHii<iT^'tecA<Ri<^i< ^aiRiiTa.n^r |have been passed ty the Tahsitdar, ^spondent No5 to altot Khasra No.319 respondent No.5 as yet, but tt is also passed in various cases fer removal |No.319byrespondentN@.5. Thesaid d^nt No.5 have not bew» challengeel a» |»eso, tte wdere p»sedfor removal of ^wen effecl to and yet the aiAioriUes alction for remowri of the encreacbments jifsfore, direct ttie Tahsiklar, Ghampa to effect to the ordere for removal of (>.319. As to vrtiether w notaSter Vhe from Khasra No.319, a Dharmashala land is the matter to be decided by purely an administrath/e msrtter the powera under Articte 226 of the to the GoTOmmentt&censta.irt theifsfore. stild b^ing martdamus ('ft^^lt) XI-HC-22 sn^r^r R;lNi3II^T »H flfi!T ?)HI<ft l:.lf lii"il1 ^i.?'lj .<^w '•>-. is3 35T '<<i<ii<'i<i, ({•rfl'y'iti, Ridi'yy 3ll^l 4a<h vO.P yo 1 ^-oo *11*<CTI Shliqi --•-••••••••••••••••• ^ 2002^- sttnd a Dharmashala on such tan<|. Govemmerrt to take a dedsicfri Dharmashala on Mie said tond we direct respondents t and 2 \ Dharmashalaon the saidiand(t today. This order will not ehattenging the orders of encroachment cases in the made befcare the appropriato the said Foruin to pass any We make It clear that In this as to the dassUicaBon <rf the tai<d We can at be^ direct tti®Stato on whether or not to consfruct a ilrithinadipulatadtimeandacrorelingly )to teke a declslon iwhrtier to ©MistniGt The securtly deposit (rf refunded tofliem. The writ petifion stands d^sposed of aecording iii<itci<n-i iii<iTfffel<ii <Ri't^i< ^ari^irgn^T <n the way of re^ondent No.5 re|noval of ?encroachnmits"presed m app^olwtetotoniinatKltfaichctallengais Fc|rum by respondelttNb.Sltbe^senfor aplpropriate orders both u'dBrina and final. or(ter we have not expressed any opiniaB hiKhasra No.318lnVilfe^eBamnidth ps.2,000/- made t»ythe peUUoners be ' Sd/- ChiefJustice .(<ft^y^)