Ghasiram And ORS. v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

Singie Beneh ^.f'^ ^s

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH

ATBILASPUR W.P.(C) No.t73^Of 2013 ^'

:1) Ghasiram, S/o.

Mohanlal, aged about 57 years, Head of the Hindu Undivided Family consisting of four brothers and widow mother PETITLONERS APPELLANTS PLAINTIFFS :2) Babulal S/o. Sunderlal aged about 72 years, :3) Mewalal, S/o.

Haraprasad, aged about 65 years, representing as the Head of H.U.F. which consists of brother's widow Shanti Bai, Son Chandradhar, Daughter Ganga Bai All of thera by Caste Brahrain Residents of Village Bodari, Tehsil BUha District Bilaspur (C.G.)

Versus

^'

RESPONDENTS :1) State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) :2) Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) :3) Tehsildar, Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) DEFENDANT No.l :4) Haraprasad, S/o.

Motilal aged about 53 years, by Caste Dhuri, Resident of Village Bodari, Tehsil Bilha District Bilaspur (C.G.) ..--"

:5) Jagdish Prasad, S/o.

Jugal Prasad, Satnaini, Resident of Village Dhodki, Tehsil BUha District Bilaspur (C.G.) DEFENDANT No.2 Abdul Hussain, S/o.

Shakir Hussain, Resident ofKhaparganj, Tehsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) DEFENDANT No.3 :6)

@ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTLCLES^26, 227 & 215 OF THE CON8TITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF PREROGATIVE DIRECTION FROM THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND TO SETAT NAUGHT THE DECISION AS A COURT OF RECORD -t,

^^\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W.P.^No.1737of2013 PETITIONERS Ghasiram & others

Versus

RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra \ '.

':^ Present:- Shri SL Kurmi, Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri A. Pandey, PL for the State.

Shri Sushil Dubey, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 6. ORALORDER (Passed on this 26th Day of February, 2015) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

1.

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition seeking relief of mutation of their name in the revenue records, delivery of possession and permanent injunction.

2.

Petitioners claim to be theowner of a tank situated in Khasra No.75/2 (old Khasra No.82), admeasuring 1 .54 Acre situated at village Bodri. 3.

Admittedly, the petitioners had earlier preferred a suit for declaration, permanent injunction as also for mandatory injunction to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 4-10-1993, passed in Civil Suit No. 7-A/1992 is not binding upon them and further that the transfer of subject tank by the defendant No.1 hlaraprasad in favour of defendants No.2 & 3 Jagdish Prasad and Abdul Hussain respectively, is not binding on them. They also prayed for declaration that the suit tank belongs to their joint family and they are in possession ever since the time of their ancestors. 4.

The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court, however, both the parties preferred appeals. While plaintiffs/petitioners were aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit, the defendants/presentrespondents No.4 to 6 were aggrieved by the decree and finding, wherein it was found by the

trial Court that the said defendants have obtained the judgment and decree dated 4-10-1993 in Civil Suit No.7-A/1992 by committing fraud. The flrst appellate Court dismissed both the appeals and thereafter this Court also dismissed Second Appeal Nos.412/07 & 260/07 by a common order dated 2-8-2010.

The High Court having already dealt with the issue concerning a dispute purely of civil nature, the present writ petition is not maintainable, however, a perusal of the return filed by the respondents, as well as the \ findings recorded by this Court in the Second Appeal would indicate that a Public Interest Litigation bearingWP No.600/1998 preferred by one Chetan Das Ahuja was disposed of by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh expressing hope and trust that the Collector and Tehsildar shall take necessary action in the matter.

When the earlier decree passed against the State has already been set aside, it is for the concerned Collector, Tehsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer to recover possession, correct the revenue record mentioning the name of the State as owner of the property and remove possession of any individual, who is found to be in possession of the property. The State is also expected to put the land in proper government use. Learned State counsel shall inform the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsildar and Collector about the observation made by this Court. Respondent No.2 Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilha, district 8.

Bilaspur is directed to submit compliance report before this Court within a period of two months.

With the direction aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. s^i-_^teWta x^1Ll&at ASHU y^^w