!;>- ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR j^t^ss"'^v Petitioners Respondents Writ Petition No.^12 of 2004 1) Subhadra Devi, widow of Hanuman Prasad. 2) Kumari Shashi Jaiswal, D/o. late Hanuman Prasad. 3) Ashok Kumar son of late Hanuman Prasad (since deceased). 4) Arun Kumar, son of late Hanuman Prasad. 5) Ajay Kumar son of late Hanuman Prasad. All are residents of village Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koria (Baikunthpur) Versus 1) Krishna Kumar son of Kamla Prasad Singh, resident of village - Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District - Koria (Baikunthpur) (CG). 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria. 3. The Collector, Koria (CG). 4. The Revenue Board Chhattisgarh Bench at Bilaspur (CG). (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 of Constitution of India) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr. M.K.Bhaduri, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Bhaskar Payasi, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 21st day ofJanuary, 2009) By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the legality and validity ofthe order dated 19-12-2003 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. 189/A-23/2002-2003 (Subhadra Devi and others Vs. Krishna Kumar and another), whereby the Board of Revenue rejected the revision filed by the petitioners. 2) The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners are that the petitioner No.1 purchased the land bearing Khasra No. 688/1 area 0.222 'r~>. 2-' 32^) -:'>, S hectares (55 decimal) from the father ofthe respondent No.1 for consideration of Rs.925/- and the sale transaction took place on 25-1-1964. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 constructed a house, boundary wall and dug a well on the suit land and since then they were in possession of the suit land on the suit land. The respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 170-B of the CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, "the Code 1959) before the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Baikunthur. On the basis of the said application, the case being Revenue Case No. 139/A-23/91-92 was registered and after hearing the parties the Sub Divisional Officer passed the order in favour of the respondent No.1 and directed the petitioner No.1 to restore the possession ofthe suit land in p. favour of the respondent No.1 by observing the reason that the transaction between the petitioner No.1 and the father of the respondent No.1 was in contravention ofthe provisions ofSection 165 (6) ofthe Code, 1959. 3) Being aggrieved, the petitioner No.1 preferred an appeal being Revenue Case N0.11/A-23/93-94 before the Court of Additional Collector, Baikunthpur, who, after hearing the parties, remanded the case to the Sub Divisional Officer with a direction to reconsider the matter, in accordance with the law. After remittance of the case, the Sub Divisional Officer obtained the enquiry report from the Tahsildar and as per the prescribed guidelines assessed the value of permanent structure raised by the petitioner No.1 at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. ft. and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 8,276.40 to the respondent No.1 and atso directed that the remaining vacant suit land be restored to the respondent No.1. There-against, the pefitioners preferred an appeal before fhe Collector, who by order dated 20-11-2000 dismissed the appea] and maintained the order dated 12-9-1996 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue after hearing the parties dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners and maintained the order dated 20-11-2000 passed by the Collector, holding that the petitioners have no enforceable right on the basis of the unregistered sale deed and the sale transaction between the petitioner No.1 of :?^.. .,{ -3 the father of the respondent No.1 which was in contravention of the provisions of the Code,1959. Thus, this petition. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Sub Divisional Officer has wrongly assessed the value of the permanent structure made by the petitioners over the suit land. The petitioner No.1 after paying the entire sale consideration took the possession of the suit land and the petitioners are bona fide purchasers and have not committed any fraud in the sale transaction. The courts below have not at all appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in its letter and spirit and passed the orders in favour of the respondents. 4) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. From perusal of the order passed by the Board of Revenue, it is evident that the sale transaction was not made in accordance with the prescribed provisions and the same was not a registered document. The provisions of Section 165 (6) of the Code, 1959 has not been followed and without obtaining the permission of the Collector, the sale transaction is not valid. 1 am of the considered opinion that the finding of the order passed by the Board of Revenue does not suffer from jurisdictional error, irregularity or illegality. Thus, the order is unexceptional and needs no interference. 5) It is well-nigh established that this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India, should refrain itselffrom interfering with the order passed by the courts below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face ofthe repord, which is not in the present case. 6) In view of the foregoing, this petition is dismissed, in limine. Consequently, M.W.P.No. 543 of 2004 for grant of interim relief also stands dismissed. Consequently, —-~—- ^ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Raju