RAJKUMAR BHOGAL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Sachin Singh Rajput, J

Since the issue involved in all these cases is almost identical, this Court proceeds to decide the same by a common order.

Looking to the similarity of the issue involved, this court proceeds with the facts of the WP(C) No. 4821 of 2024 taking it as a lead case.

The facts in brief are that parcel of land bearing Khasra No. 30 situated at Amlidih, Raipur , District Raipur was purchased by the father of the petitioner namely Parmanand Yadav from M/s Jain Housing Agency, Raipur, C.G., area being 1000 sq. ft. for a consideration of Rs.40,000/-. On plot No. 19 &20 a dilapidated house was constructed and after death of his parents his name and that of his brother was mutated in the revenue records as the owner thereof. All of a sudden, 23.07.2024 a memo was issued to the petitioner by the R/3 Municipal Corporation, Raipur to submit the relevant revenue documents, map & building licence within 15 days therefrom or else action would be taken against him under the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Pursuant to the said memo the petitioner submitted all the documents on 05.08.2024 however, on 12.08.2024 respondent No.4/ Naib Tehsildar, Raipur issued a show cause notice to the petitioner stating that as 108.5 Sq. Meter of canal land was encroached upon by him, he was asked to appear before him on 20.08.2024 to explain the things or else ex-parte proceedings shall be drawn against him. Though the notice dated 20.08.2024 was not served upon the petitioner yet on 05.09.2024 a dispossession warrant was issued by respondent No.4/ Naib Tehsildar in respect of so called encroachment of 108.5 sq. meter. Hence this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land in question was purchased by the petitioners themselves long back and since then they are in its rightful possession and occupation and no encroachment over the canal land as has been alleged by the respondents, has been made by them. He further submits that the demolition of the house of the petitioners appears to be actuated by the order passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in PIL No.81/2021 though it is with regard to encroachment of Khasra No.25 whereas the petitioners’ house is situated at Khasra No.30. In all these circumstances, the impugned order of dispossession is bad in law and being so it is liable to be set aside.

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that though the canal land consists of Khasra No.25 situated at Amlidih Raipur Tehsil & District Raipur, in fact the demarcation was done in compliance of order of Division Bench of this Court in PIL No.81/21. He further submits that the demarcation report itself indicates that though the petitioners purchased a property being part of Khasra No.30, yet their physical possession is in fact over Khasra No.25. A report to that effect has been placed in WPC No.4821/2024 in which the name of the occupant is also appended in which name of the petitioners also find place. He submits that if the petitioners have any grievance with regard to identity of their land, the only course available to them for protection of their right, is to agitate the same before the Division Bench in the aforementioned PIL. Counsel for the Municipal Corporation also agrees to the stand of the State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Though the petitioners claim their possession over Khasra No.30 to be legal according to the website of the Municipal Corporation, which according to the respondent/ State is not correct because they have encroached upon the land bearing Khasra No.25, and there is already an order by the Division Bench that any encroachment with regard to Khasra No.25 shall be removed.

Be that as it may, in the light of submissions made by counsel for the parties, at this stage this Court is of the opinion that it would not be proper to determine as to whether the petitioners are in possession of Khasra No.30/27 or Khasra No.25 on account of it being a disputed question of fact. Therefore, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to entertain these petitions. They are accordingly dismissed. Petitioners are however at liberty to avail legal recourse available to them under the law. Interim order if any, thus goes.