Rama Metals And Energy Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4/State and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 8.

The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 5056 of 2023 (Vaibhav Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed off the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 8/writ petitioner.

Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submits that the respondent No. 8/writ petitioner has filed the writ petition before this Court by submitting the he is the owner of the land bearing Khasra Nos. 380/12 and 380/19 situated in village Mohbhatta, P.H. No. 21, Tahsil Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). He also submits that the respondent No. 8/writ petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the respondent authority in forcefully disturbing the possession of the respondent No. 8/writ petitioner and destroying the boundary walls as well as standing crops in the respondent No. 8/writ petitioner’s land. The adjoining lands bearing Khasra Nos. 380/82, 380/88, 380/89, 380/90, 380/91, 380/133, 380/140, 380/141 and 380/142 and other have been purchased by the appellant in the name of Rama Metals and Energy Pvt. Ltd. and its Director is Shri Sanjay Agrawal.

It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant that few of the subsequent owner of the land originally Khasra No.380/14, have sold the land to appellant/Rama Metals and Energy Pvt. Ltd., the respondents No. 5 and 6, have altered the online map, which now shows that the lands belonging to Rama Metals is overlapping the land belonging to the respondent No. 8/writ petitioner (Khasra No. 380/13) based on the illegally prepared online map Rama Metals got their demarcation proceedings conducted on 23.11.2023, connivance with the respondents No. 5 and 6, in which on 26.11.2023, they have demolished the boundary walls constructed on the respondent No. 8/writ petitioner’s land and used JCB vehicles to complete destroy the standing crops in the respondent No. 8/writ petitioner’s land. He also submits that the appellant was in apprehension that petitioner may proffer writ before this Court, therefore, the appellant has filed the caveat before this Court on 06.12.2023 and also sent the advance notice to the respondent No. 8/writ petitioner by registered post. Even thereafter, the respondent No. 8/writ petitioner has not supplied the advance copy to the counsel for the appellant and registry of this Court has also not raised this default or published the name of counsel of appellant in the writ petition.

Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has passed the order against the right of the appellant by observing that to “ascertain whether the petitioner has been dispossessed from the above said land or from its portion by respondent No. 8” without giving the opportunity of hearing to the appellant. He also submits that the learned Single Judge without issuing notice to the appellant allowed the writ petition not only granting final relief directing the Collector/respondent No. 2 to conduct demarcation, but also directed him to ascertain whether the respondent No. 8/writ petitioner has been dispossessed from the above said land or from its portions by the appellant. The said direction is not only in gross violation of principle of natural justice, without hearing the parties to the proceeding against which adverse order has been passed, but also illegal and unsustainable because under the provisions of Land Revenue Code and as per the directions prayed by the respondent No. 8/writ petitioner demarcation proceedings is to be conducted by Tahsildar and not Collector and there is no statutory power conferred in the Land Revenue Code to the Collector to ascertain dispossession from the suit land. That apart the direction is contrary to the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the issue involved is of civil nature, and therefore, proper recourse to file a civil suit. He also placed a reliance of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Johra & Others v. State of Haryana & Others, reported in (2019) 2 SCC 324.

It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is arbitrary and is contrary to the material available on record, and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition without proper considering the fact on record. He also submits that the learned Single Judge completely relied on the submission of the respondent No. 8/writ petitioner by ignoring that by this order the right of the appellant is also affected by this order. Hence, the aforesaid impugned order dated 20.12.2023 is untenable in the eyes of law.

On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4 and learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 8 submit that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly disposed off the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 8/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record.

On a query of this Court made to the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant that why he did not file a review petition before the learned Single Judge, learned Senior Advocate submits that the because of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Johra (supra), the appellant has a right to approach this Court for setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and for remanding back the matter.

Considering the submission made by the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, it is true that though the appellant was a party in the writ petition and the learned Single Judge, without giving the opportunity of hearing to the appellant disposed off the writ petition, but the appellant has a remedy to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge for reviewing its order on the ground that the appellant was not heard, therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable. Moreover, from the perusal of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Johra (supra) goes to show that the aggrieved person was party to the case, but without giving an opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved person the final order was passed to which the aggrieved party filed a review petition against the order which was passed by the Court concerned and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the SLP was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court remanded the matter back. But, in the present appeal, the appellant has not preferred a review petition before the learned Single Judge and has directly filed the present appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, the present writ appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed on this ground alone with liberty to the appellant to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge, if so advised.

It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only confined for disposed off the present appeal and it shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the matter.