DAULAT RAM GOND vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(227) No. 518 of 2018
1. Daulat Ram Gond S/o Shri Tijakram Gond, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
2. Ramesh Kumar Gond, S/o Shri Anandram Gond, Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
3. Premshankar Patel, S/o Shri Hetram Patel, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
4. Manohar Lal, S/o Shri Sharda Prasad, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
5. Ravindra Kumar, S/o Shri Tulsiram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
6. Anand Kumar Patel, S/o Shri Nilkant Patel, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
7. Roshanlal Patel, S/o Shri Pilakram Patel, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
8. Dwarika, S/o Shri Bhakti, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
9. Subhash Kumar Patel, S/o Shri Ramdin Patel, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
10. Khemraj Patel, S/o Shri Puniram Patel, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
11. Dhananjay Patel, S/o Shri Yadram Patel, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
12. Dwarikaprasad (Died) Through Legal Heir Bhagwat Chandrakar S/o Dwarikaprasad, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
13. Krishnakumar, S/o Shri Suratlal, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
14. Ramkumar Patel, S/o Shri Suratlal Patel, Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
15. Harishankar Patel, S/o Shri Fodilal Patel, Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
16. Nathuram Sen, S/o Shri Ganguram Sen, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
17. Gesh Kumar Patel, S/o Shri Pilauram Patel, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
18. Shivkumar, S/o Shri Bindeshri, Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
19. Kirtan, S/o Shri Sonsai, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
20. Anandram Patel, S/o Shri Ruplal Patel, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
21. Ugrasen, S/o Shri Chandrika, Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
22. Shambu, S/o Shri Sakirtan, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
23. Ratilal, S/o Shri Butu, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
24. Tulsiram, S/o Shri Hariram, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
25. Udhav Prasad, S/o Shri Kamal Prasad, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
---- Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. The Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. The Collector, Mahasamund, Collectorate Campus, Mahasamund, P.S. Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.
4. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mahasamund, Collectorate Campus, Mahasamund, P.S. Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.
5. The Divisional Forest Officer, Mahasamund, Forest Department, Civil Lines, Nearby Collectorate, P.S. Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
6. The Deputy Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Mahasamund, Civil Lines, Nearby Collectorate, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents For Petitioners : Shri Rajat Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Ms. Priyamvadha Singh, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Advocates:
['SATISH CHANDRA VERMA', '', 'Mohan Lal Sen', 'Rajat Agrawal', 'A G']

Order on Board

26.08.2022 Heard.

1) This petition has been brought being aggrieved by the order dated 08.02.2018 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Collector, District Mahasamund in Revenue Case No.28B-121 year 2017- 18, by which Van Adhikar Manyata Praman Patra granted to the petitioners were cancelled.

2) The petitioners are permanent resident of Village Malidih, Tahsil and District Mahasamund. The petitioners were granted lease of forest lands in the year 2013-14.

3) Further grievance of the petitioners is that the State Government is not purchasing the paddy cultivated and produced from the agricultural land which was given through Van Adhikar Manyata Praman Patra to the petitioners.

4) At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that now the State has started to purchase the paddy from the present petitioners and thus, the petition may be disposed of in light of the judgment passed in W.P.(227) No.755 of 2014 and the similar issue was involved in that case.

5) Learned State counsel has no objection.

6) Considering the fact that the lease which was granted to the petitioners in this case and the lease granted to the petitioners in W.P.(227) No.755 of 2020 are same and they belong to same village, therefore, this petition is disposed of in light of the ratio laid down in W.P.(227) No. 755 of 2020.

7) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document