HsGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wrlt Petltion No.1351 of 2003 Petltjoner Respondents Hariram Died and deieted 1-A 1-B 1-C 1-D 1-E 8<4aankl Ba'i, wife of Late Hariram Sshu, aged about 55 years; Khubhan Bai, wife of Rewaram aged about 36 years (Daughter of Lats hariram Sahu), Residents of yiiiage Beigaon, Tahssi- Dongargarh, Distrlct-Rajnandgaon (C.G.). Manhar Lal, Son of Late Hariram Sahu; sgsd about 34 years, Ganshyam Son of Late Hsriram Sahu, aged about 32 years, Dhaneshwari Bai, VVIfe of Radhe Lai, (Daughter of Late Hariram Sahu), aged about 30 years, resident of Viliage-Kasari; Tahsi! snd Dlstrict" Rajnandgaon (C.G.). No.t-C & 1-D, resldent of VJIIage Deokatta, Tahsii-Dongargarh, Dlstrict-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattlsgarh; Through: Prindpa! Secretary; Revenue, Secretariate D.K.S.Bhawan Ralpur (C.G.) Commlssloner Revenue, Rsipur Now absorbsd In Board of Rsvenue Bilaspur (C.G.) Coiiector Distt.Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Kaiaram S/'o. Late Krishna Gond, age about 40 years; Dileep S/o. Late l^ishna Gond; age about 38 years; Mayaram S/o. Late Krlshna Gond; sge about 32 years; 4 to 5 R/o Viil.Kanhargaon Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (vVrit Petltlon underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of indla) 2. 4. 5. 6. ^) ^ Mr.R.N.Jhs, counset forthe petitioners. IVIr.Sumit Jhanwar, Pansi Lawyer for respondents No.1 to 3/State. None present for respondents No.4 to 6. (SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharms, J.) ORDER (5-12-2011) 1. By thls 'w'rit petitlon under Articis 227 of the Constltutlon of india the petltioners have chalienged the iegaSJty and propriety of the order dated 14.11.2002 passed by the Additionai Commissioner, Ralpur Dlvision, Raipur, in Case No.57/A-23/'02-03, reversing the order dated 21.12.95 passed by the Co!lector, Rajnandgaon, in Case No.27/A-23/94-95, whereby the Coiiector, Rajnandgaon has quashed the order dated 31.12.91 passed bythe Sub Divlsionai Officer, Dongargarh, In Revenue Case N0.98/A-23/87-S8. 2. As per initiai order dated 30.8.1989 passed by the Coliector, Rajnandgaon, In Revsnue Appeai Case ?\lo.18A/23(B)/88-89. the order passed by the Sub Divisionai Officer, Dongargarh under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 for retum of possession has been quashed and remanded back the case. After remsnctjng the case ths Sub DivislORai Offteer has agaln passed the order dated 31.12.91 in Revenue Case No.98/A-23/87-88 and heid that the origlnai petitloner has not notlfjed the transaction as required under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'Code'), therefore, his possession was unauthorized and no further inquiry is requlred. Same was reversed by the CoSlector, Rajnandgaon vide order dated 21.12.95 and whlie restoring the order datea' 31.12.91 passed by the Sub Divisionai Offjcer, Dongargarh the Addltionai Commissioner has quashed the order dated 21.12.95 passed by ths CoSSector. 3. havs heard learned counsei for the petitioner, pemsed the order impugned and copies of other orders flied on behaif ofthe petitioners. 4. Learned counsei for the petitioners submits that as heid by the High Court of iViadhya Pradesh In the matters of Atmaram & another v. State of iVi.P. (1995 VPU S33) and Diiirendra Nath Sharma v. State of M.P. wsw^w^^^a^^-:^.^.^^^ .^ ^: ^' -s- ^, 1 and another (1SS5 MPU 786), inquiry' reiatjng to transaction whether it was frauduient or not is necessar/. Learned counsei further submlts that in the present case in the iight of the order dated 30.8.1989 passed by the Coiiector, Rajnandgaon, the Sub Djvlsionai Officer, Dongargarh was under obilgation to make an inquiry into the matter. The order passed by the Coiiector was binding upon the Sub Dlvisionai Officer, but instead of making any inquiry he has vloiated the order passed by the Coisector. The Commissioner was aiso under obiigation to affirm the order passed by the CoiEector and not to reverse the order passed by the Coiiector. 5. On the other hand, iearned Pans! La'wyer for respondents No.1 to 3/State opposes the petition and submits that the Additionai Commissioner has not committsd any iiiegailty whiie reversing the order passed by the Coiiector, Rajnandgaon. 6. Order passed by the Coilector was bindlng upon'the Sub Divisionai Officer and the Sub Divisionai Officer was under obiigation to compiy with the order and direction and not to disobey such order, but by not making' any inquiry the Sub Divisionai Officer has vioiated the order passed by the CoSSector. As heid by the High Court of iVladhya Pradesh in the matters of Atmaram and Dhirendra (supra), inquiry under Section 170-B of the Code by the party is necessary. By reversing the order passed by the Coiiector, the Commissloner has commltted iitegaiity. 7. Consequentiy, the writ petition deserves to be aiiowed and it is hereby aiiowed and the order dated 14.11.2002 passed by the Addltlonai Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur is hereby quashed. Csse js remitted to the Sub Divlsionai Officer, Dongargarh for making Inquiry. The Sub Divisiona! Officer, Dongargarh aftsr providing compiete opportunlty 07 hearing to the parties shaij pass the order afresh. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^