HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B HON BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, & J HON’BLE SHRIRN CHANDRAKAR JJ rlt Appeal No 49 éf 2011 Appellant etitioner Amnkla! Saluja aged about 33 years s/d Harnamdas Saiuj occupation cultivation r/o vulage Sendn Tahsll and Dustnct Bilaspur (MP) (Now Chhattusgarh)‘ esondents 1. The Additional Collector Brlaspur District Bllaspur (MP) (Now CG) ' l Versus Brsahulal aged about 6O years Slo Nandlal Satnaml occupation cultivation r/o Millage Sendn Tahsll and District Brlaspur (MP) (Now CG) Smt Talrus Bar w/o Late Bell rlo vmage Sendn Tahsrl and District Brlaspur Chhattlsgarh ltwan S/o Ghasrya aged about 45 years occupation cultivation RIO Village Sendn TahSil and District Bilaspur (MP) (now CG) Smt Sarwanti Bai w/o Late ltwari aged about 60 years Ranjeet s/o Late ltwari aged about 40 years Balwant S/o Late ltwari, aged about 32 years, Rajkumar s/o Late ltwari aged about 27 years Satyam Bai d/o Late ltwari aged about 23 years . Respondents 3(a) to 3(e) All Rio Village 8endri Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG) 2(1) 3(a). 3(b) ) 3(d) ) 3(c 3(e Amrika Bai d/o Late ltwari aged about 5O years rlo Village Kormi Bilaspur (CG) i Rajesh Saluja aged about 47 years s/o Harnam x Das Saluja (preViously Petitioner No 2(1)} Ashok Kumar Saluia aged about 4 years s/o Harnam Das Saluja (PreViously petitioner No 2(2)} Amarnath Saluja aged about 58 years s/o Harnam Das Saluia (Prewously petitioner No 2(3)} Respondents 4 to 6 all reSident Nariyal Kothi Dayalbandh Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3(f} - / Present : Shri AV Shridtiar. counsel for the appellant. Shri UND- Deo, Govt. Advocate for the State. _ ORAL JUDGMENT (3m March, 201 1) Per Dhirendra’Mishra J Respondents No. 2 & 3 filed an application under~§ection 5 of the MP (Chhattisarh) Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargo‘n Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon ‘Ko W P Rp i, _ > g -Q... Q27 Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Ta;tha r Mu'kti Adhiniyam, 1976~Gn short “the Aét, 1976"), against Amrikla! and: Ha‘mamdas for return of their agricultural 1a d with the allegations that they - belong to scheduled caste; they had borrowed some loan from the aforesaid Hamamdas. who got certain deeds executed in favour of his son Amrikial f loan and they transferred possession of the land in their faVOur, an cultivated the land in lieu of interest. When they denied to return possesgsion of the property, the abové i application was tiled on 20‘" May, 1986: The purchasers denied the allegations that it wasa loan transaction andfstated that it is an outright sale ‘ as the vendors executed the registered sale deed on 2.2.1968 after obtaining proper consideration in favour of Amriklal. (the appellant herein) against security l l 2.’ ' The Sub Divisional Officer rejected'the application of the contesting respondents and held that the land was sold for proper consideration and the respondents have failed to prove that the purchaser was money lender. HoWever, revision preferred by the vendors of the disputed land was allowed by the Additional Collector by setting aside the order of SDO and held that thei transaction in favour of purchaser was prohibited transaction and quashed the sale deed dated 2.2.1968 under Section 70f the Act of 1976‘. The writ petition tiled by the appellants has. been further dismissed by the leatned Single Judge. 3. : The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order of the“ leatn‘ed Single Judge along with an application (IA No.01) for condonation of delay as the appeal has been preferred with a delay of 262 days, as per office note dated 15‘ February. 201 1. 4. ‘g Shri Shridhar. learned counsel for the appellant submits that the g ‘ instant appeal has been preferred with a delay of 262 days as the appellant - came to )mow the fact of dismissal of the writ petition only when he received #3 $ \ (w summons from the lower Court regarding e)(;ecution of the order/directions cf the High Court. It. has been stated in the ap‘plication that the fact of dismissal gzifrthe petition ‘was not in the knowledge of the appeltant as he was not in constant touch with his counsel. ‘ i ' 5., Learned counsel for the appellanm vehemently argued that the trespondents preferred revrsion against the order of the SDO before the Additional Collector though there is no prlowsron of revrston in the Act of 1976 The application under Section 5 was fled in the year 1986 ie almost after 18 years of the disputed transaction which was hopelessly barred by limitation However this aspect has also not been consrdered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. l 6.1 Heard learned counsel for the appellant on application (lA No 01) for condonation of delay as well as on admission and perused the impugned l order. 7.? Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition With an observation that admittedly the appeal against the order of the SDO passed under Section 7 of the Act 1976 lies to the Additional Collector under Section . l 8 The Additional Collector exerCIsmg appellate jurisdiction under the Act . has decrded the appeal and'therefore, the‘order of the Additional Collector cainnot be termed without jurisdiction only on the ground that the party labeled its petition as revision before the said authority The learned Single Judge further conSIdering the value of the disputed property at the relevant time as revealed from the bikri-chhanth and the consrderation paid by the purchaser, .as mentioned in the document, held that the Additional Collector rightly held that the aforesaid transaction was a prohibited transaction and \__ i set aside the same. ' \ I 8.: ’ So farkas argument of learned counsel for the appellant regarding ' limitation is concerned. the application was filed by the vendors only when ‘ l / H \ thg purchaser refused to return the land mortgaged by way of security in the year 1986 when the vendor approached the purchaser as per terms of the sate contract. That apart, from perusal of the rders passed by the SDO and' the Additional Collector. it is manifestly clear hat the issue of limitation was? never raised before the aforesaid authorities. herefore, the appellant cannot be) permitted to raise the issue of limitation f ir the first time before the Highi Court in writ proceedings. Even otherwiseithe reasons assigned by the, r i appellant in the application for condonation of delay that he learnt about the order when he received notice from the lower authorities for execution of the order of the High Court, cannot be accepted, particularly when the appellant was duiy represented by a counsel before the w’rit Court and the order of dismissal was well within the knowledge of the counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. i 9. ‘ On the basis of aforesaid discussions, the writ appeal preferred by the i appeilant is dismissed as barred by limitation as well as on merib. Sd/- l Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra \aANGANATH CHANDRAKAR E J‘s LN. J]; 3 Judge x/ i r \\ \‘\ \ Judge P ~ \ x f