Ramkumar Shriwas v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 771 of 2020
1. Ramkumar Shriwas, S/o Late Mehettar Lal Shriwas, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Janjgir, Police Station And Post Janjgir, District : JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh
2. Vikas Paliwal, S/o Shri Narendra Paliwal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Ward No. 6, Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
3. Naveen Rathore, S/o Bisahu Prasad Rathore, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Ranipara, Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
4. Ravindra Dviwedi, S/o Bhagwat Prasad Dwivedi, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village Sukli, Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
5. Leeladhar Shriwas, S/o Late Mahettar Lal Shriwas, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Janjgir, Police Station And Post Janjgir, District : JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Collector, Janjgir Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
3. Tahsildar Janjgir, Tahsil Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
4. Sub - Divisional Officer (Revenue), Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant :
Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For State :
Mr. V. R. Tiwari, Addl. Adv. General Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 28.02.2020
1. In the present writ petition, the relief sought for by the petitioner is for quashing of the advertisement dated 28.01.2020; whereby the
property which was originally leased out to the petitioner as early as on 19.12.1983 is also included in the list of land which has been put for auction. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the lease which was granted to the petitioner on 19.12.1983 vide memo dated 27.03.1989. The said auction was subjected to challenge in a revision before the Board of Revenue which initially allowed the application for revision of the petition on 18.01.2020. Subsequently, the Collector moved a review application seeking review of the order dated 18.01.2020 and the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 05.03.2016 allowed the review petition and in the process, rejected the revision on merits. This order dated 05.03.2016 was subjected to challenge in a writ petition before this Court i.e. WP(C) No. 1192 of 2016. This Court vide its order dated 21.07.
2017 allowed the same and held that on allowing the review petition the original revision itself cannot be decided on merits. The revision has to be decided on its own merits separately and for this reason the matter was remitted back to the Board of Revenue.
2. The said revision petition as per petitioner's contention is still pending consideration before the Board of Revenue. Meanwhile, the respondents now vide advertisement dated 28.01.2020 have put certain government lands for auction and in the list of the land the property which was earlier leased out to the petitioner has also been reflected as having being put for auction.
3. The only grievance of the petitioner at this juncture is that, if the Board of Revenue finally allow the revision petition, the petitioner would find it difficult in getting the property back in case, if the
property is put to auction as per advertisement Annexure -A1. This would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner particularly in respect of property which is in possession of the petitioner since 19.12.1983.
4. The limited prayer that the petitioner has made at this juncture is that till the revision is decided by the Board of Revenue the said property may not be put on auction by the respondents and the same may be put on auction only after to the outcome of the revision petition.
5. The State Counsel however opposing the petition submits that since the revision petition has been reopened as per the direction given by this Court on 21.07.2017, the position as it stands would be the order of the Collector in issuing the memo asking the Tehsildar for cancelling the lease comes into operation and as such the petitioner does not have right over the said property as on date till it is finally adjudicated by this Board of Revenue. According to the respondents, the implication on the order of the Collector is that the lease stands cancelled.
6. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, particularly taking note of the fact that the property is in possession of the partitioner since 19.12.1983 i.e. almost about 37 years and the revision petition of the petitioner against the memo of the Collector seeking cancellation of the lease is still pending consideration before the Board of Revenue, it would be in the larger interest that the said property which was leased out to the petitioner on 19.12.1983 be kept out of the auction till the revision is finally decided by the Board of Revenue.
7. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed to the extent that the advertisement dated 28.01.2020 would be confined only to the other properties except for the property in dispute pending before the Board of Revenue, so far as the petitioner is concerned and which shall be, if required put to auction only after the outcome of the revision.
8. The writ petition, accordingly stands allowed and disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rahul