Arun Kumar Keshr vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 03.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 3391 of 2022. The relevant extract of the order of the learned Single Judge reads as follows :

“2. The whole dispute seems to be in respect of the land situated at block 950/2 measuring 10x15 (150 sq. ft.) situated at Ramanujganj, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj. The contention of the petitioner was that he has already made an application before the Nazul Officer for settlement of the land in terms of the policy of the State Government of the year 2019. However, before conclusion of that said proceedings, the respondent nos. 6 and 7 with malafide intention, have dispossessed the petitioner from the said land and have raised another construction at the said block.

Today, when the matter of taken up for hearing, the counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 submits that proceedings for settlement of the said land already stands concluded on 18.07.2022 and the application of the petitioner stands rejected. Thereafter, on 19.07.2022 the petitioner was advised to remove his temporary possession of the said land by the petitioners. On 21.07.2022 the petitioner's temporary possession was removed and the Nagar Panchayat itself has started a construction of a watershed over the said property which is adjoining a bore-well also dugged by the NagarPanchayat about 2 years back so as to enable the general public, shop owners and shopkeepers of the adjoining adjacent area the facility of drinking water.

Given the fact that respondent/State has already taken over the possession of the said land and have raised certain constructions for certain public cause, this Court is of the opinion that the relief that the petitioner now seeks for in the present writ petition, would not be sustainable in the given factual matrix of the case.

The disinclination of this Court in entertaining the writ petition would not preclude the petitioner from challenging the order dated 18.07.2022 whereby his application for settlement of the land stands rejected by way of an appeal under the scheme applicable. As regards the relief for grant of compensation for damages, this Court again taking into consideration the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, would not be in a position to adjudicate upon the said issue also. The appropriate remedy available for the petitioner in this regard would be to approach the concerned Competent Court of Civil law seeking for compensation for loss suffered by the petitioner on account of the alleged act on the part of the respondent No. 5 and 6, if any.

With the aforesaid observation the present writ petition stands disposed of.”

A perusal of the order dated 18.07.2022 would go to show that an eviction order was passed against the appellant by the Tehsildar under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 long back on 18.08.2009 and that the appellant had continued to remain in possession unauthorisedly.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, we see no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.