1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPC No. 4131 of 2021

• Smt. Shail Mishra W/o Kaushlesh Mishra Aged About 48 Years R/o Kaser Para,

P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil And District Raigarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of CG Through Secretary Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya,

Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. The Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

3. The Najul Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

4. The Tehsildar, Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

:

Shri Priyank Rathi, Advocate

For Respondents/State

:

Ms. Shriya Mishra, PL

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order

06/10/20

21

1. Heard.

2. The default as pointed out by the Registry is ignored.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the land bearing Plot No.23 admeasuring

1314 sq. feet in chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Nazul Sheet No.73 was recorded

in the name of one Rameshwar in the year 1953-54 as per Annexure P-2. The

said name was mutated as per the order of the Dy. Secretary. Thereafter, a

house was constructed over the land and name of Rameshwar was recorded.

After death of Rameshwar, the legal heirs sold the subject property to the

petitioner and the petitioner is in possession of land fro 60-62 years.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that according to the

2

government circular dated 09.09.1992 which purports that if any person is in

possession of the land prior to 1959 i.e. coming into force of C.G. Land

Revenue Code the cut off date was fixed on 1^st of April, 1955, the person in

possession would be deemed to be owner. It is stated since the petitioner has

purchased the land from the legal heirs of Rameshwar, who was recorded

owner of property prior to 1955 the possessory title would be absolute with

purchase of property from the lawful recorded owner, therefore, the petitioner

possession as on date cannot be termed as that of an encroacher. It is stated

the petitioner, despite these facts is served with a notice dated 05.10.2020

(Annexure P-1) to which reply was filed and during the enquiry it was also found

that the petitioner was in possession of the said land and the construction is 50-

60 years old. Consequently, the petitioner had filed an application before the

Revenue Officer, Raigarh to mutate his name and issue a fresh lease by

following the guideline of circular dated 11.09.2019, which remains undecided

till date.

5. Perusal of the Annexure P-2 would show that the name of Rameshwar

(Baleshwar) was recorded by the assessment list of Municipality in the year

1953-54 and subsequent sale-deed as Annexure P-6 is placed on record of

year 1956 the revenue records of year 1953-54 shows that the subject Nazul

plot at Kaserpara was mutated in name of Rameshwar (Baleshwar). Therefore,

the presumptive value of correctness of the title including the possession was

with Rameshwar is fortified. Subsequent to it for a valuable consideration the

possession of it was transferred to the present petitioner. The fact of

possession is lamented by finding recorded in revenue case 2/A-4/09-10

Annexure P-4, wherein it is recorded that superstructure over the plot situates

for more than 50-60 years. The order-sheet of revenue case dated 16.04.2010

3

purports that an application filed by the petitioner no objection was given by

different government department and it was proposed to grant lease. Specific

finding was given that Ganga Shri Bhojnalaya is in possession of the petitioner

and the superstructure is 50 to 60 years old.

6. The State government had issued a circular on 09.09.1992 to evaluate the

nature of possession with a particular cut off date. The circular of the State

Government dated 09.09.1992 (Annexure P-3) reads as under:-

e/;izns'k 'kklu] jktLo foHkkx

&2 ch@92 Hkksiky] fnukad 9&9&92

ftyk&'kgMksy

fo"k;& utwy Hkwfe ds vkcaVu] l/kkj.k ds laca/k esa ekxZn'kZu ftyk 'kgMksyA

vkids }kjk tks ekxZn'kZ