Back
2020 Supreme(Chh) 189
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, CJ. and Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
P.S. CHOUHAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 203 of 2020
Decided On : 28-02-2020
Jitendra Gupta, Advocate, Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - impugned order - sale deed - Challenge order - lease deed - Case of appellant is that property situated at plot No-6/1 located on Sheet No-15 measuring was given on lease to 4th respondent for a period- per annum- Respondent- 4 constructed a building over said property and sold it to wife of appellant by a registered sale deed - By virtue of said registered sale deed name was also mutated in revenue records - Appellant moved an application for renewal of lease deed in favor of his wife during this period Document placed on record shows that on basis of order of mutation in name of she moved an application before Officer for extension of period of lease of land only - In proceedings of renewal of lease period one has filed an objection mentioning that sale deed is of Plot wherein Plot is not recorded in name of seller - Based on that objection proceedings of review of order have been initiated and order of mutation passed earlier has been reviewed – Held, Perusal of records would show that property lease out in favor of respondent- 4 was purchased by wife of appellant herein vide registered sale deed - They came in possession of said property immediately after date of purchase and moved an application for mutation of name which was also allowed and name was mutated in records - When application for renewal of lease deed has been filed an objection was filed by one mentioning that land which was allotted on lease to respondent - 4 was bearing plot as mentioned in registered sale deed and also application for renewal of lease - He raised argument only with respect to fact that lease deed has been renewed and therefore Lessee is not liable to pay lease rent which is not sustainable for afore mentioned reasons - Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT
Parth Prateem Sahu, J. - Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 02.01.2020 passed in WPC-4730 of 2019, whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant observing that the appellant was in occupation of the property uninterruptedly during the period 2002 to 07.
2. Case of the appellant is that, property situated at plot No.6/1 located on Sheet No.15, measuring 2,500 sqft was given on lease to the 4th respondent for a period from 20.04.1982 till 31.03.2002 on rent of Rs.530/- per annum. Respondent- 4 constructed a building over the said property and sold it to Smt Brajesh Chouhan, wife of the appellant by a registered sale deed on 23.09.1998. By virtue of said registered sale deed, name was also mutated in the revenue records. The appellant moved an application for renewal of lease deed in favour of his wife, Smt Brajesh Chouhan during this period.
3. Document placed on record shows that on the basis of order of mutation in the name of Smt Brajesh Chouhan, she moved an application before Nazul Officer, Durg for extension of period of lease of land only. In the proceedings of renewal of lease period, one LM Pandey has filed an objection mentioning that the sale deed is of Plot No.6/1, wherein Plot No.6/1 is not recorded in the name of seller. Based on that objection, proceedings of review of order dated 14.10.1999 have been initiated and the order of mutation passed earlier has been reviewed. The application of mutation itself was dismissed on the ground that name of the applicant Smt Brajesh Chouhan could not be mutated for plot No.6/1 and by virtue of that order, Revenue record was again recorrected vide order dated 10.09.2002. Said order was challenged before appropriate authorities ie Board of Revenue and vide its order dated 28.03.2005, Board of Revenue held that Additional Collector, Durg has not committed any error in granting permission for review of order of mutation and the appeal was dismissed. Appellant again made an application to Collector/In-Charge Nazul Officer stating sequence of events as to how the plot number referred by respondent- 4 recorded in Revenue records came to be 6/38 in which the additional Collector-cum-Nazul Officer has passed an order 25.07.2006, observing that the order passed by his predecessor Officer was on technical basis and that was also approved by the Board of Revenue and there is no new material placed on record for a new order and it has been directed that the applicant therein to get the sale deed itself corrected. The application for correcting the description of property mentioned in sale deed was submitted before the registering authority which was registered on 26.04.2006 and it was corrected on 29.09.2006. On 22.11.2006, name of Smt Brajesh Chouhan has been mutated in records of plot No.6/38. After mutation, Smt Brajesh Chouhan filed an application dated 29.01.2007 for extension of lease period, which came to be renewed on 30.08.2007. The lease deed was renewed from 01.04.2002 for a period of 30 years, ie till 31.03.2032, yearly arrears of rent of Rs.1,270/- is also added along with other amount calculated for renewal charges.
4. Appellant deposited the said amount and got the lease deed executed in favour of Smt Brajesh Chouhan and thereafter, filed Writ Petition- WPC- 5408 of 2007 for getting refund of amount of Rs.12,720/- towards arrears of lease rent which came to be disposed off on 21.11.2017, relegating the appellant to approach the Collector with a direction to conclude the proceedings within a period of three months.
5. Appellant thereafter submitted application before the Collector (Nazul) in which the ground taken is that as the time from 01.04.2002 till 31.03.2006 lapsed in correcting the revenue entries and therefore, he is not liable for payment of any amount of arrears of rent for a period of 04 years. Nazul Officer vide order dated 28.02.2018, dismissed the application mentioning therein that according to Rules of the
