IMS: IH1 ^' HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR Petitioner: Bfispottdetrts: Miscateueous Pettfcloa No. 3899 of 1993 Gautaui Chand Duggar, aged about 40 years, son of Shri Himniatuial Duggar, resident of Pratap Ganj, Jain Mandir Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, M.P. Versus 1. Chain Stn^t—— (Dead) 1(A) Smt. Soman Bai W/o Late Chain Siagh acged about 40 years R/o Vfllage KaagoU, Po. Dharmpura, District Baster (C.G.). 1(B) Shyam Shunder S/o Late Chain Snigh aged about 22 years R/o ViUage Kangou, Po. Dharmpura, District Baster (C.G.). l(C) Phool Singh S/o Latge Chsin Singh aged about 20 years R/o ViUage Kaagoli, Po. Dbsmipura, District Baster (C.G.). Board of Revenue, M.P. Moti Matial GwaUor. Com.caissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur. Additional CoUector, Jagdalpur. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revcnue), Jagdalpur. State of Madhya Pradesh, through, CoUector, Jagdalpur, District Bastar. 2. 3. 4. 5. PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OP THE CQNSTITUTION OF (8B :Hon'Ue Mr. T.P.Sfaarna, J.) Present:- Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suinit Jhanwar, P.L. forthe State/respondents No. 3 to 6. None for therespondents No. 1(A), 1(B), 1( C) Ss 2. ORDBR (Passedoa 02/11/2011} 1. By fbis petition under Article 226/227 oftbe Constitution oflndia petitioner has chaUenged the legaUly and propriety of fhe order dated 5/2/1993 passed by Board of Revenue, Madhya Piadesh, Gwalior in case No. 9- ftiree/92, order dated 10/6/1992 passcd by Board of Revenue, Madfaya Pradesh, Gwalior iu revision No. 303-1/87, order dated 27/7/87 passed by Cotmnissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur ta Appeal Case No. 69/A-23/85- -/- 2. 3. 4. 5. 86, order dated 30/5/86 passed by Additional CoUectDr, Jagdalpiir in Appeal Case No. 19/A-23/83-84, order dated 16/5/83 passed by Sub Divisional Officcr (Reveuue) Jaadalpur in Ra, Case No. 175/A-23/77-78 and order dated II/ 11/80 passed by Sub Divisioiial Ofi&cer, Jagdalpur in Case No. 175/A-23/77-78 wherebv Revenue Courts has dnected to retura the agricultural land which was iu possession offhe petitioner to Laxinan son of Sukhdeo. Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate for the petitioner aad Mr. Sumit Jhanwar, P.L. for fhe State/respondents No. 3 to 6 are heard. Leanied counsel for ttie petitioner subinits fhat afler oblaiaing pemiission Sukhdeo owner of the land which was nieniber of scheduled tribe who has sold fhe laad to thc petitioner and afier lapse of considerable tune inquity was iaitiated by Sub Divisional Officer, Jagdalpur ia which Laxaian has given contradictoiy stateinent relating to transaction but has speci&cally admitted that it was seU traasaction although, he had not received ftdl consideration, ia these circiunstaaces aU. fhe Revenue Coiirts werc under obligatioa to held fhat traasaction was not ftaudulent but aU the Revenue Courts has iUegaUy directed fhe petitioner for retum of possession of the laad to Laxinaa i.e. son of original laad owner Siikhdeo aad thereby coinmitted gross Ulegalily. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner further subinits that proper opportunity ofhearing has notbeen provided to fhe parties before passiug such order. On the ofher haad, leamed coiuisel for fhe State/respondents No. 3 to 6 opposed the petition and submits that Revenue Courts has rightly acted in accordaace wifh provisions ofSection 170B offhe C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, AU fbe orders impugned reveal fhat on the basis of inquiry Revenue Courts has arrived at a findiag that traasaction was fraudulent transaction. Definitely, tfaere is soiae contradiction in the stateinent of Laxmaa dated 10/9/80 and appUcation dated 24/4/78 but ia both the 1.;^ '•ifc. vl --?- \k stateiiients/apptication he has specificaUy incutioned fhat transaction was fraudulent traasaction. Only seU after obtainiag permission £roni Collector does not give presuniption fhat transaction was geniiine aad not fraudutent. It was obUgatory upbn the petitioner to ensure fbat transaction was not fraudulent. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction Higli Coiut, caanot exercises appeUate jurisdiction whUe exercisiag supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Court is required to consider whefher tiiere is a case of gross iUegaMty or Jurisdictional error which has niateriaUy effected fhe decision. On perusal of aforesaid orders, I do not find such junsdictional error or glaring nustake or illegality in the procedure adopted by Revenue Courts requiring any iuterference ia exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Consequentty, pettdon is liable to be disinisscd aad is hereby disniissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge ^-