NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1151 of 2024 H. C. Shukla (Peti. In Person) S/o Late Shri M.M. Shukla Aged About 79 Years R/o - B/6, Shri Ram Nagar, Opp. T.V. Tower, Po Shankar Nagar 492007 P.S. Khamardih, Teh. And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Tehsildar Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Shri Baljit Singh Bhalla S/o Shri Trilok Singh Bhalla Neelkanteswar Mahadev Mandir, Kelkarpara, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner : Mr. H. C. Shukla, petitioner-in-person.

For Respondents/State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, G. A.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

28.02.2024

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the respondent no. 2 and 3 in order to examine the claims of the petitioner in the interest of justice.

10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) quashing the impugned order (P-1) and allow the Application U/O & Rule 11 by quashing the proceeding U/s 250 of the Code.

10.3 Such other relief(s) including costs may kindly be granted as the Hon’ble High Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.

2. Facts of the present case in a nut-shell are that respondent No. 4 moved an application under Section 250 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (herein referred to as ‘Code, 1959’) claiming therein that survey No. 447/2 ad-measuring 0.011 hectares and survey No. 452 ad-measuring 0.045 hectares are recorded in his name in the revenue records and he has Bhumiswami rights over that property. It is further pleaded that on an application moved by the petitioner before the concerned Tehsildar, the demarcation was conducted on 24.06.2019 and the report was submitted before the Court of Tehsildar on 04.01.2020. In that report, it was found that the petitioner has encroached upon 0.030 hectares of survey No. 452 situated at Village Shankar Nagar, Patwari Circle No. 110/63, Tehsil & Dist.-Raipur. Respondent No. 4 prayed for re-reinstatement of Bhumiswami rights as he was improperly dispossessed. A reply was filed by the petitioner and the contents of the application were denied. It is specifically stated that no sale deed with regard to the purchase of the property in question has been produced by respondent No. 4. It is further stated that demarcation was conducted in the absence of the petitioner and without affording any opportunity for a hearing. It is also stated that Section 250 of the Code, 1959 does not apply where the subject property is a dwelling house. It is also submitted that the plot of the petitioner is different from the plot detailed in the application filed under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 and parties have been in possession of their respective plots for the last 36 years without any interference. It is also stated that the question of title is involved as the claim has been made by respondent No. 4 after 12 years and therefore revenue court has no jurisdiction. The petitioner also moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC before the Court of the Tehsildar on 18.09.2022 on the ground that a copy of the sale deed has not been produced by respondent No. 4 to ascertain the boundaries. The Tehsildar vide order dated 13.03.2023 rejected the application moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 only on the ground that provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC do not apply in a proceeding under Section 250 of the Code, 1959. A rev