Order on Board

12/03/2025

1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition against the order passed by the Committee/respondent No. 2 dated 23/11/2021, whereby order of regularization of encroachment have been passed in favour of private respondent for land bearing survey No.675 admeasuring 163 sq.ft. each where huts/houses were constructed and are still in existence.

2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner is the owner of land having survey No. 675/1 total area admeasuring 2629 sq. ft. situated at Baijnathpara, Ward No. 41, Tehsil and District Raipur. The Municipal Numbers of the plots are 7/343 NS 7/348. The aforestated plot was purchased by the petitioner through a registered sale deed dated 01.03.1982 from the legal heirs of Mustafa Khan. There were 12 huts/houses and they were given on rent to private respondent in the year 1965. Admittedly, respondent No. 6 was tenant of the petitioner. Mustafa Khan was paying municipal tax regularly. He died on 19.04.1963. A legal notice was issued to the tenants/private respondent for payment of rent on 20.07.2017 and thereafter application for eviction was filed by the petitioner on 27.12.2017. Earlier, Civil Suit No. 193-A/2002 was filed by the petitioner against one of the tenant namely, Banshi Jagat for eviction from rented accommodation and the same was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 25.02.2004. Thereafter, applications were moved by the petitioner for eviction before the Rent Control Authority on 27.12.2017 against the remaining tenants including Banshi Jagat and the matter is still pending before the authority. On 19.03.2018, private respondent moved applications before the Nazul Officer for the grant of the lease. The petitioner raised an objection before the Nazul Officer on the ground that the land in question belongs to the petitioner as it was purchased through a registered sale deed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC against private respondents. The reply was filed to the interim application and vide order dated 06.03.2021, the application moved by the petitioner for temporary injunction was allowed and the defendant(s) of that case were restrained from alienating the property or creating third party interest. The matter for grant of lease which was pending before the Nazul Officer, Raipur was referred to a Committee of Five Members under the freehold scheme. Private respondents also claimed regularization of encroachment over government land along with the lease. The petitioner raised an objection in those proceedings and produced a copy of the order of temporary injunction granted in her favour dated 06.03.2021. The Committee/respondent No. 2 vide order dated 23.11.2021 allowed the applications moved by private respondent herein along with others and passed an order for the grant of Bhumiswami rights on payment of stamp duty as per Policy dated 11.09.2019. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Committee/respondent No. 2 in these petitions.

3. Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of survey No. 675/1 as the same was purchased through a registered sale deed dated 01.03.1982. He would further submit that private respondent herein along with others were tenants of the petitioner and earlier an eviction suit was filed against one Banshi Jagat and the same was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 25.02.2004. He would also submit that findings were recorded by the learned Civil Court that the petitioner is the owner of the property and she has the right over the property. He would argue that thereafter the petitioner preferred an application before the Rent Control Authority for eviction against all the tenants/private respondents and the same is pending. He would further argue that private respondent herein along with others were well aware of