1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPC No. 1358 of 2021

Krishna Kumar S/o Gopiram Agrawal Aged About 62 Years R/o

Krishna Vihar Colony House No. 145, Tahsil and District Raigarh

Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary Department of Revenue and

Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhavan New Raipur , District Raipur

Chhattisgarh.

2. Nazul Officer Nazul Office , Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.,

3. Collector Collectorate Buildling, Raigarh, District Raigarh

Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate

For the State

: Mrs.Richa Shukla, Dy. Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order on Board

04

.03.2021

1. Heard.

2. The prayer made in this writ petition is to set aside the order dated

19.02.2021 (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the order passed by the Nazul Officer, Raigarh to the

effect that the petitioner is not in possession of the part of land

bearing Kh.No.84/1 admeasuring 4750 sq.ft., is completely wrong,

He would submit that according to the Revenue Book Circular and the

Policy of the State, the persons who are in possession of the

government land, on payment of amount, the lands were directed to

be settled in their favour as per the guidelines dated 11th September,

2019. He would further submit that the Nazul Officer has passed the

order that he is not vested with such power to settle the matter as it is

the Collector who would eventually decide the allotment and not the

2

Nazul Officer. Therefore, the order dated 19.02.2021 and the

consequent auction proceeding which has been published may be

stayed.

3. Learned counsel would further submit that according to the policy of

the State, the persons who are in possession of the subject

government land prior to 20th August, 2017 were allowed to get the

ownership of the land under the Scheme and the Panchnama filed as

Annexure P-4 would show that the petitioner is in possession of the

Part of Kh.No.84/1 admeasuring 4750 sqft. therefore, the order of the

Nazul Officer is completely without any basis.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the

arguments of the petitioner and submits that the document (Annexure

P-4) on which the right is claimed about the possession does not bear

any seal as to by whom it is prepared. It is further submitted that the

demarcation can only be carried out under the valid order of the

competent authority. Nothing has been placed on record to show that

pursuant to certain orders, the Panchnama was carried out, therefore,

Annexure P-4 cannot be relied upon. She further submits that for The

State has laid down a policy dated 11th Sept. 2019 Annexure P-2. It

is also submitted that in absence of any authenticity of Annexure P-4,

the petitioner has tried to make out a case before this court on the

basis of forged document.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents

it would show that the state has laid down a policy 11th September,

2019 (Annexure P-2) that the persons who are encroachers of the

government land prior to 20th August 2017, the same would be

accommodated and the matter will be settled in favour of claimants on

payment of prescribed fee. The petitioner claims that he is in

possession of part of Plot No.84/1 and out of 9500 sq. ft., 4750 sqft.,

is in his possession which is situated at Jagatpur. The petitioner has

3

heavily replied on Annexure P-4 which is a Panchnama to show his

possession. It would reflect from Panchnama that the petitioner is in

possession of 4750 sqft., of land prior to 2017 and the documents of

payment of tax receipts were also submitted. According to the State

Policy, the entitlement