IN THE HIGH CCORT OF JUDIC^TURE W BILASPUR (C .0 ) Writ Petition_,NQ. &?'7—/2001 Petitioners "w'*,'^,'^1^ cys^ ^fS- ^- ••^>" 1. Udaykant Jha, s/o late Shri Anirudh Jha 2. Kali Kant'.'Jha, s/o late Shri Anirudh Jha 3. Tara Kant Jha, s/o late •Shri Anirudh Jha 4 . Surya KaBt Jha, s/o late Shri Anirudh Jba 5. Rana Kant Jha, s/o late Shri Anirudh Jha 6. Shashi Kant Jha, s/o late Shrl Anirudh Jba All residents of Hikani Para, Jagdalpur. Distt.Bastar (C.G) •V- Respondent_s s ^e^yy 5)(L^->.. 1. Pitto, SOQ of laildian Gadaba resideat of Viliage Sarglpa.1, Tahsil Jagdalpur, Distt.Bastar •i\i^' ^-^- ^.» ;^.—^ai^_,^ 13s,. '"PSs- v^'^ 2. Inder, s/o Bhalu Oadaba, resident of Sran Sargipal, ^^ Tahsu J%l^;,Distt-Bastar ^0:1A->,\^3' State of Ms^ya^'Esa&sh. i(':'''^a-"'f<) through Collector, Bastar. fty] J^ t>A- .«•& 4.. GoEnmissioner, Bastar Division, -/1\ Jagdalpur, 5. Col.led-or, Bastar at Jagdalpur, Distt.Jagdalpar (Bastar) 6. Sub-Divis-tonal Offj.cer (Revenue) Jagdalpur, Distt.Bastar 7. Ayatu Ran, s/o Mangal Ram, Muriya. resident of village Metguda, Jagdalpur, Distt.Bastar Chhafctj.sg arh !(!••,., T^— . .i..d- <-/•--- i -i»ia Co^^s-RIT PSTITION UNDSR ^TIC_LE_[226J/227 OF THE CONSTITOTION ;w .a: _F ^NDJA FOR_ ISaJMICE_OF_WRIT, ORDSR OR DIRECTION ETC HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice PrashantKumar Mishra Writ Petition No.677 of 2001 Petitioners Respondents versus Udaykant Jha and others Pitto and others Present: Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondentsNo.3 to 6. Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ORAL ORDER (Passed on 29th November, 2010) Heard on admission. 2. The petitioners have called in question the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jagdalpur on 8-6-1994 (Annexure P-4), the appel'ate order dated 5-10-1999 passed by the Collector, Bastar (Annexure P-5) and the revisional order passed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division on 5-9-2000 (Annexure P-6). The revenue authorities have concurrently held that the transaction between the petitioners' father Anirudh Jha and one Inder by registered sale-deed dated 12-4-1972 is, in fact, a Benami transaction to defraud the original tribal holder, thus, the revenue authorities have directed for reversion of land to the original holder. 3. From the order passed by the revenue authorities, it would .-.''appear that after registration of case under Section 170B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (henceforth 'the Revenue Code'), the petitioners filed their reply inter alia submitting that they have purchased the land after seeking permission from the Collector and the transaction is bona fide. Initially, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), by his order dated 29-3-1988, directed reversion of land in favour of the successors of the original holder, however, on appeal preferred by the petitioners' father Anirudh Jha, the prder passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was set aside and the Collector, Bastar, by his order dated 19-5-1992, remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. It is recorded in the impugned order Annexure P-4 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer that statements of witnesses were recorded and the Sub-Divisional Officer himself visited the spot to make enquiries from the owners of the adjoining lands. Respondent No.7 Ayatu Ram made statement that he has never sold the land to any person. It was also held that, in fact, the land was purchased by the petitioners' father Anirudh Jha in the name of Ayatu Ram and from the very beginning Anirudh Jha was in possession of the land. It was also found that Inder, to whom Ayatu Ram had sold the land, was also a Benami purchaser on behalf of Anirudh Jha. Thus, it was found that the land deserves to be reverted back to the original holder/his successor, namely, Pitto Gadaba. Thus, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), by his order dated 8-6-1994 (Annexure P-4), again directed for reversion of land. 4. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer has been affirmed by the appellate authority of Collector, Bastar and the if revisional authority of Commissioner, Bastar Division. ..^sSSS? li^tSvSSS 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the authorities have not properly appreciated the facts of the case and have recorded perverse finding with regard to nature of transaction. He would submit that there is absolutely no evidence regarding the fraud being inflicted upon the original holder. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel has supported the impugned orders by submitting that concurrent. findings against the petitioners have been recorded by three subordinate revenue authorities and no interference can be made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. The finding as to the nature of transaction is essentially a finding of fact recorded by three authorities concurrently after appreciation of evidence. The Sub-Divisional Officer has passed an elaborate order and has dealt with all the transactions entered with regard to the subject land from 1967 onwards and has recorded a categorical finding that in spite of the land having changed hands and its owners on three different occasions, the possession of the land remained with the petitioners' father Anirudh Jha. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer has taken care to visit the spot and verify the facts from the owners of adjoining lands and considering the totality of evidence, has concluded that the initial transaction, by which the land was sold in favour of Ayatu Ram, was a Benami transaction and similarly, subsequent transaction between Ayatu Ram to Inder and thereafter from Inder to Anirudh Jha are also tainted because it is ^ ' Anirudh Jha who was purchasing the land in the name of others, ®s> though during all this period, it is Anirudh Jha who remained in possession ofthe land. 8. In Ouseph hflathai and others vs. M. Abdul Khadir, (2002) 1 SCC 319, State Through Special Cell, New Delhi vs. Navjot Sandhu alias Afshan Guru and others, (2003) 6 SCC 641 and Yeshwant Sakhalkar and another vs. Hirabat Kamat Mhamai and another, (2004) 6 SCC 71, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while exercising power under Article227 ofthe Constitution of India, High Court will not convert itself into a Couri: of appeal and re- appreciate the evidence. Similarly, it is settled in catena of decisions, to refer one of those, Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others, (2003) 6 SCC 675, the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases to ensure that subordinate Courts and Tribunals act within the bounds of their authority and that it cannot be used for correcting mere errors. It is also held therein that power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be used when there is glaring illegality or manifest injustice resulting from the impugned order, however, in the present case, no such infirmity has been pointed out. The impugned orders passed by the authorities are in the nature of recording a finding on appreciation of evidence regarding the nature oftransaction. 9. As a result, this Court is of the opinion that the instant writ petition has no substance, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Judge .spal