Udhoram Koshaley v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order Sheet WPC No. 142 of 2021 Udhoram Koshaley S/o Late Shri Panchram Koshaley Aged About 52 Years Occupation Advocate And Cultivator, Resident of Village Kosir, P.H. No. 03, Revenue Circle Kosir, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., --- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, Department of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Registrar Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Ghadi Chowk, Beside Dau Kalyan Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

4. Tahsildar Tahsil Sarangarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

5. Manager Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Gatadih Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondents 13.01.2021 Petitioner Udhoram Koshaley appears in person. Madam Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Heard.

The grievance of the petitioner is that he is owner of certain lands situated at village Kosir total numbering into 8 admeasuring 0,735 hectares. However, while revenue document B-1 was prepared, it appears that Kh.No.384/03 was inadvertently deleted, consequently the entitlement of sale of paddy to the extent of holding of land was reduced and instead of 0.735 hectares, the area has been shown to be 0.636 hectares by the Society. Learned counsel refers to Annexure P-2 and would submit that despite personal appearance made before the Tahsildar and the request made, the authorities have not given any heed.

Under the circumstances, if the holding of the land of the petitioner is illegally reduced then consequently the proportionate sale of paddy shall also be affected, which which will be prejudicial to the

interest of petitioner.

A perusal of the Rin Pustika would show that the total number of holding of the petitioner's land is shown as 8 admeasuring 0.735 hectares. If the Rin Pustika prima facie shows that the holding of land do not match the holding shown for the sale of paddy by the Cooperative Society, then certainly it may cause loss to the petitioner without his fault. Consequently respondent no.4, the Tahsildar, is directed to take into consideration the application of the petitioner and after verification of Rin Pustika, pass suitable orders within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, respondent no.5 shall accordingly amend the area of subject land holding and proportionately the sale of paddy to the extent of land holding shall also be rectified. With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE R a o