Facts
The petitioner is the registered owner of land measuring 0.3390 sq. feet at Khasra No. 366/1, village Umarpoti, District Durg
Source reference: p. 3, para. 2Due to financial necessity, the petitioner intended to sell the land; however, the Registrar refused to execute the sale deed
Source reference: p. 3, para. 2This refusal was based on an order dated 02.05.2023 issued by the Collector, Durg, which prohibited the sale and purchase of land in village Umarpoti to prevent "illegal plotting"
Source reference: p. 3, para. 2, 5The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the impugned order and a mandamus to prevent interference with his property rights
Source reference: p. 2, para. 1Issues
1. Whether the restrictive order issued by the Collector to prevent illegal plotting can be applied to prohibit an individual from selling their entire landholding within permissible limits
Source reference: p. 3-4, para. 3, 5Law Applied
The court's reasoning is grounded in the constitutional right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of their property save by authority of law
Source reference: p. 2, para. 10.2The court balanced the administrative power of the Collector to regulate land use and prevent "illegal plotting" under revenue laws against the individual's right to alienate property within the "permissible limits of land transaction"
Source reference: p. 3-4, para. 3, 5Reasoning
The court observed that the primary intent of the Respondent authorities in imposing the restriction was to curb the practice of unauthorized/illegal plotting
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5However, the State Counsel conceded that the Revenue Authorities would have no objection if the petitioner sold his land within permissible limits without engaging in illegal plotting
Source reference: p. 3, para. 3The court reasoned that since the petitioner intended to sell his total landholding (rather than fragmenting it into illegal plots), the objective of the restrictive order dated 02.05.2023 was not violated
Source reference: p. 3-4, para. 5Thus, the court determined there was no further legal conflict to adjudicate, provided the transaction remained within "permissible limits"
Source reference: p. 4, para. 5Holding
The court held that the administrative ban on transactions in the village should not stifle the legitimate alienation of property by a registered owner when no illegal plotting is involved
The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to sell his land, provided the transaction is within the "permissible limit of land transaction"
Source reference: p. 4, para. 5-6Original Court PDF
SANTLAL GUPTAvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in