HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, C.J. WRlTPETmON N0^749 OF 2006 PETITIONERS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Vs. RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. Wshnu Dayd, Slo. Late Roopehand, aged about 61 years. Vijay Kumar, S/o. Late Roc^chand, Aged about 51 yeare. Shiv Kumar, S/o. Late Roopchand, Aged about 46 years. Shyam Suncler, S/o. Lsrte Roopchand, Aged about 41 years. Anand Kumar, S/o. Late Roopchand. Aged about 36 years. All residents of Sakti, Tehsil: SakB, District: Janjgir-Champa, ChhatUsgarh. Shankarial ^rawal, S/o. Gyanbam /^rawal, Aged aboitt 67 years. Jagdish Prasad, S/o. Ramphal Agrawal, ^edabout 46years. Both residente of SakS, Tehsil: Sald, District: Janjgir-Champa, ChhatUsgarh. Additional Collector, Janjgir-Champa, ChhatUsgarh. Board of Revenue, ChhatKsgarh at Bilaspur, Chhaffisgarh. Present: Shri Sanjay K. ^rawal with Shri Sourabh Sharma.leamed counsel for the peSUoners. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, leamed counsel for respondenls 1 and2. Shri Utkareh Verma, learned Dy. G.A. fer re^omterts 3and 4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 13"' Novembar, 2006) The tand comprised in Khasara No.369/1 area 11.26 acres was purchased by the petiBoners hereln, according to them, after oMajnlng permission required under Section 165 (6) of ChhatBsgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short "the Code'). Sale instrumente are ateo r^istered. iIfe -^ When the matter stood thus, an application was mowd under Seclion32 of the Code before the AddlUonal Collector, Janjgir-Champa contendmg that the petitioners herein obtained permisston under SecUon 185 (6) of the Code and the sale instruments are registered by playjng ftaud. The Additional Collector, Janjgir-Champa having entertahied that applieation under Section 32 of the Code, issued notices to the petlUoners herein. The petitionere put in appearance betore the Addttional Cottector and fited an application contending that the AddiConal Collector lacl®jurisdidion to go Into the validHy of the permisston under Section 1^ (6) of e Code and the sale deed in the applicaUon filed under Section 32 of the Code. The Additionat Collector not agreeing with the above contertion by order Dated 07.01.2006 rejected the application. Feeling aggrieved by ths sald order, the petiUonere preferred Revenue Revision to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 01.03.2006 summarily rejected the revision. Hence, ttils writ peUtion under Articles 226 and 227 ofthe Constitution of India. (2) I heard leamed counsel for the farfl^. Shri Sanjay K. ftgrawa\, learned counset appearing tor the peUtionera woutd eontend Biat since in eariier proceedings, the validity of the permlssion and sale af the land was agitated belween ttie same parfes and since it has cutminated in the r^istered sale-deed, the AddiBonal Collector lacfcs power under Sech'on 32 of the Code to go into the validlty cS the pwmission under SecUon 165 (Q of the Code and the validity of the sale-deed again, and such a power could not be culled out from the provisfons of Section 32 of the Code. -3- (3) At the fime of hearing, a translated copy <rf the appllcation made under SecUon %Z of the Code made available to me. The same shall form part of the records. 1 have perused the same. tn the said application it is alleged that the petiUonere got ttie sale-deed registsred in their favour after obtaining the permission under SeeUon 165 (6) of the Code by misappropriating the maps, manipulating direcBons, boundaries ete. and by playing fraud. (4) SecUon 32 of the Code provldes that nothing in ths Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of Revenue Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process <rf the Code. (Emphasis supplied by the Court). The provisions begins with a noa-obstante clause. Therefore, the provisions of Section 32 have ovem'ding effect. The pleadings of the contesUng respondente themselves without proof could not jusfify exercising the power under Section 32 of the Gode in fevour of them. Whether a case is made out to exereise the power in favour of the contesdng prtvate respondents under SecUon 32 of the Code woutd depend upon the evidence that may be led before ttie Additionat Colleetor in the course of enquiry, but, it cannot be said that the Aekllttonal Collector inherently lacks jurisdictk?n to entertain the apptication fited under Sedion 32 of the Code. The question whether before granting permission under SecBon 165 (6) of the Code, all relevant materiats and documerrts were placed before the authority competent to grant the permisston and the sale of the land are in accordance with law, are all quesdons to be gone into by the Addltlonal Collector in the enquiry envisaged. At this stege, it cannot be said that the contesting private respondents are not entiUed to ', "V -4- move an application under SecCon 32 of ttie Cods pteadtng traud on ths part of the purchasers or to plead that the pennission secured under Section 165 (6) of the Code is viUated on account of ttie non-consideraCon of relevant materials. Above all, 1 am of the considered opinfon thstf no prejudice would be caused for <he p^Sonere by participaftng In the enquiry that may be conductsd by the Addltional Collectw on the application filed under Section 32 of the Code. On the crther hand, if the application fited by the other side under Section 32 of the Code is fbreclosed for want of jurisdicUon there is likelihood of failure of jusfice, If there is any merit and substance in Uie allegation macte by the contasting private respondents. Looking from any angle, this Is not a fit case where the Court should foreclose the enquiry by the Addltional Coltoctor ^n the application fited by the contesUng prwate respondents under SwBon 32 of the Code. (5) In the result, the writ petition Is dismissed. The petiUonere are granted three weeks' time to file their statement of objecttons to the main applieation filed under SecSon 32 of the Code. The AddiBonal Collector, Janjgir-Champa is dlrected to dispose of Uie ap|rticaton as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a perfod of SK months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Sd/- Chief Justice /'