SHRIMATI RIZWANA SIDDIQUI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant petition against the order passed by the Committee/respondent No. 2 dtd. 23/11/2021, whereby order of regularization of encroachment have been passed in favour of private respondent for land bearing survey No.675 admeasuring 163 sq.ft. each where huts/houses were constructed and are still in existence.

(2.) The facts of the present case are that the petitioner is the owner of land having survey No. 675/1 total area admeasuring 2629 sq. ft. situated at Baijnathpara, Ward No. 41, Tehsil and District Raipur. The Municipal Numbers of the plots are 7/343 NS 7/348. The aforestated plot was purchased by the petitioner through a registered sale deed dtd. 1/3/1982 from the legal heirs of Mustafa Khan. There were 12 huts/houses and they were given on rent to private respondent in the year 1965. Admittedly, respondent No. 6 was tenant of the petitioner. Mustafa Khan was paying municipal tax regularly. He died on 19/4/1963. A legal notice was issued to the tenants/private respondent for payment of rent on 20/7/2017 and thereafter application for eviction was filed by the petitioner on 27/12/2017. Earlier, Civil Suit No. 193-A/2002 was filed by the petitioner against one of the tenant namely, Banshi Jagat for eviction from rented accommodation and the same was decreed vide judgment and decree dtd. 25/2/2004. Thereafter, applications were moved by the petitioner for eviction before the Rent Control Authority on 27/12/2017 against the remaining tenants including Banshi Jagat and the matter is still pending before the authority. On 19/3/2018, private respondent moved applications before the Nazul Officer for the grant of the lease. The petitioner raised an objection before the Nazul Officer on the ground that the land in question belongs to the petitioner as it was purchased through a registered sale deed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC against private respondents. The reply was filed to the interim application and vide order dtd. 6/3/2021, the application moved by the petitioner for temporary injunction was allowed and the defendant(s) of that case were restrained from alienating the property or creating third party interest. The matter for grant of lease which was pending before the Nazul Officer, Raipur was referred to a Committee of Five Members under the freehold scheme. Private respondents also claimed regularization of encroachment over government land along with the lease. The petitioner raised an objection in those proceedings and produced a copy of the order of temporary injunction granted in her favour dtd. 6/3/2021. The Committee/respondent No. 2 vide order dtd. 23/11/2021 allowed the applications moved by private respondent herein along with others and passed an order for the grant of Bhumiswami rights on payment of stamp duty as per Policy dtd. 11/9/2019. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Committee/respondent No. 2 in these petitions.

(3.) Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of survey No. 675/1 as the same was purchased through a registered sale deed dtd. 1/3/1982. He would further submit that private respondent herein along with others were tenants of the petitioner and earlier an eviction suit was filed against one Banshi Jagat and the same was decreed vide judgment and decree dtd. 25/2/2004. He would also submit that findings were recorded by the learned Civil Court that the petitioner is the owner of the property and she has the right over the property. He would argue that thereafter the petitioner preferred an application before the Rent Control Authority for eviction against all the tenants/private respondents and the same is pending. He would further argue that private respondent herein along with others were well aware of the status of the petitioner even though they moved applications for the grant of lease and regularization of encroachment according to the Policy dtd. 11/9/2019. He would further argue that a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction was filed and vide order dtd. 6/3/2021 temporary injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner. He would also argue that in the proceeding pending before the Committee/respondent No. 2, the petitioner raised an objection and also produced a copy of the order of temporary injunction passed in the civil suit, but the same was discarded by the Committee only on the ground that in that civil suit State is not a party. He would contend that it is also observed by the Committee that Mustafa Khan had no right over the property and the land in question is Abadi land. He would further contend that there is a specific finding recorded by the learned Civil Court that there is no document to presume that the land in question is Abadi land. He would also contend that even in the present petition, the respondents have not adduced any document to establish that survey No. 675/1 is government land or abadi land. He would pray to set aside the order passed by the Committee/respondent No. 2 in favour of private respondents.