BANWARI LAL MORYA Vs. RAJKUMAR RAGHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ appeal is to the order dtd. 16/05/2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.1728 of 2019 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was disposed of and a direction was given in favour of respondent No.1 that he is free to construct the toilet over the land comprised in his possession of Khasra No.1504/2 at Doundi District Balod, Chhattisgarh.

(2.) The relevant facts for disposal of this appeal are that respondent No.1 made a complaint to the Additional Tahsildar, Dallirajhara, District Balod mentioning therein that at village Dallirajhara, Patwari Halka No.10, behind the house of applicant/respondent No.1, there is open land possessed by him for last 30-40 years. The said open land has been left by him for his own use (Nistar) and on that land, neighbour of applicant/respondent No.1 stored stones over land possessed by him and thereby trying to encroach over his land. He also made a complaint that he is being restricted from the appellant/non-applicant from raising construction. The applicant/ respondent No.1 made a prayer that the appellant/non-applicant should be restrained from taking possession of land possessed by him illegally. The Additional Tahsildar vide its order dtd. 07/07/2014 passed an order that no document has been produced by the appellant/non-applicant in support of his plea that he has purchased the land. It was also held that the land in dispute is a Nazul Government land and the disputed land was in possession of applicant/respondent No.1. At the same time, the Additional Tahsildar directed the appellant/non-applicant not to create any obstruction on the possession of applicant/respondent No.1. It was also recorded that the appellant/non-applicant has encroached over the Government land, therefore, proceedings for removing encroachment to be initiated and concluded.

(3.) The order dtd. 07/07/2014 passed by the Additional Tahsildar was made to challenge by the appellant before the Sub-Divisional Officer, who dismissed the appeal. Against which, second appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, Durg Division Durg, which also came to be dismissed vide order dtd. 28/07/2016. The Authorities have recorded that the property in dispute is a Government land; there is no right with the alleged seller from whom it is claimed by the appellant to have purchased the property vide unregistered receipt. The Commissioner has also taken into consideration that as per the report, the applicant/respondent No.1 has been shown to be a Patta holder of part of Khasra No.1504/2 and while upholding the orders of Additional Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer, dismissed the second appeal.