The jurisdiction of a Tahsildar under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code does not extend to the removal of constructed properties, which falls under the jurisdiction of civil courts.

C A V Order

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

“10.1 It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of CERTIORARI quashing the order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the Tahsildar.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue any writ or direction or order as deem fit in the interest of justice.”

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the Tahsilar, Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh in a complaint case by which on the basis of complaint made by respondent No. 4 i.e. Madhu Devi. The petitioner has been directed to remove the alleged encroachment made by him whereas according to the petitioner, the petitioner has never encroached upon any land and as such the proceeding initiated under Section 250 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code , 1959 is without any basis. The petitioner has approached before this Court directly as according to the petitioner, the Tahsildar has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction vested upon him as per Section 250 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code , 1959. In the land in question, it is neither an agricultural land nor an vacant land. A house has already been constructed as such the Tahsildar is not having any jurisdiction under Section 250 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code , 1959 initiated any proceedings and to pass any order.

3. The case as projected by the petitioner is like that respondent No. 4 i.e. Madhu Devi has made complaint before the Collector, Janjgir-Champa stating that the petitioner and one Atis Kumar have made encroachment on her Bhumiswami Land Part of Kharsa No. 507, situated at Village-Bhadariapara.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as Section

250 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code , 1959 is concerned, the Tahsildar can not pass any order in respect of the land in which building has already been constructed. The vacant possession of a land in which building has already been constructed cannot be given by the concerned Tahsildar as such the get back possession of the building under Section 250 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code , 1959 is not maintainable. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Krishnakumardas & Another Vs. Balramdas & Ors reported in 1971 JLJ 827 and order passed by this Court in the matter of Asgar Ali vs. Amna Bai reported in

2011 (3) MPHT (Chh) 98.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the proceedings initiated by the concerned Tahsildar is in accordance with law and rightly passed the order while directing the petitioner to vacate the land in question. The concerned Tahsildar after calling the report from the concerned Patwari has passed the order which cannot be said to be faulted with. The petitioner is an encroacher and as such he is not entitled for any leniency.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. From the perusal of the record, it seems that upon complaint made by respondent No. 4, a proceedings has been initiated by the concerned Tahsildar under Section 250 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code , 1959 while directing for removal of construction raised by the petitioner on the disputed land. The said construction is permanent in nature and as such the concerned Tahsildar is not having jurisdiction to pass order for removal of permanent construction.

8. Section 250 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code , 1959 is only for removal of encroachment in respect of open land of any Bhumiswami. From the bare reading of this provision, it is quite vivid that this p