Mandatory Compliance with Land Revenue Code Required for Diversion of Communal Nistar and Gauchar Land

The petitioner, Gram Panchayat Chalta, challenged the legality of an order dated 18.11.1996 passed by the Collector, Surguja, in Revenue Case No. 03A of 1996–1997.

The impugned order allotted land recorded as Nistari/Gauchar (grazing land) to the Agriculture Department.

The petitioner contended that the Gram Panchayat had passed resolutions opposing the allotment and that a Tahsildar’s enquiry report had confirmed the land was used for Nistar (common village use) with no alternative land available.

The petitioner alleged the allotment occurred without following statutory procedures or principles of natural justice.

Conversely, the State argued the petition should be dismissed due to gross delay and laches, as the order was passed decades ago and the Agriculture Department had been in possession since 1961.

1. Whether the allotment of Nistari/Gauchar land to the Agriculture Department was legally valid under the statutory provisions of the Land Revenue Code.

2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite a delay of approximately 25 years, given the nature of the land and the rights of the village community.

Sections 236 and 237 of the Chhattisgarh (C.G.) Land Revenue Code, 1959, which govern the reservation and diversion of land set apart for special purposes such as Nistar or grazing.

These provisions mandate strict adherence to procedure and require that the village community be heard before land reserved for common use is diverted.

The equitable doctrine of "delay and laches," which typically bars stale claims in writ jurisdiction unless substantial rights or statutory violations necessitate intervention.

The Court acknowledged the State's argument that the long delay (from 1996 to 2021) would "ordinarily disentitle" the petitioner to relief.

However, it balanced this against the significant nature of the land—recorded as Nistar/Gauchar for the common use of villagers—and the statutory mandates of the C.G. Land Revenue Code.

The Court noted that the record showed the Tahsildar had initially opposing the transfer and the Gram Panchayat had raised objections.

Reasoning that the Code requires strict procedural compliance and an effective hearing for the community in matters affecting Nistar land, the Court determined that the impact on the rights of the village community outweighed the procedural delay, thus warranting a fresh consideration by the competent authority.

The Collector is directed to afford a proper hearing to all affected parties, examine compliance with Sections 236 and 237 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, and pass a reasoned speaking order within 45 days of receiving the representation.