HEGH COURT OF CHHAT?ES$ARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition N02924 of 2606 Petitianer Dhani Ram Diad and deieted ‘ (a) Gauri Eai Wdlo. Dhaniram Patel, aged about 59 years. (b) Ghanshyam Patei, 3’0 Late Dhaniram » Patei.aged abaut42 years, ‘ Teekaram Patei, Sia Late Dhaniram Patel, aged about 33 yeara, (d) Jee‘tram Patel S/o. Dhanimm Patel, aged abaut 35 years, AH Circle are R/o. Pithoura, Viliage Tahsi! Chhibarra ana Pevenue ‘District Maha$amund (C.G.) (G) Versus Respcndents 1 . Additianal Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur. 2. Additionai Coilector, Raipur Division, Raipui. Sub-Divisienai Officer, Mahasamund. 4. Dhan Singh, dead ihrcugh iegai reprewntative, namely, Ramcharan SIG Raga-am, Aged aboui 6O yeam Rio Village Chhibara, Revenue Circle, Pithom Tahsil Maha$amund district Raipur. {Writ Petition under Aiticle 226/227 of the Constiiutian 5f indie) MrBhaskar Payas‘ni. ceunsel for the wetiiieners. Ms Sangeeia Mishre, Panel Lawyer for respendenie No.1 to 3iSiate. None piesent for respondent No.4, (SB: Hon’ble Mr. TP. $harma. 4.} QRDER i5R§L} (24-8w23'i 1) 1. By thie writ petition under Article 2261227 of the Constitution of lndia the petitioners have challenged the iegaliiy & propriety of the order dated M32000 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Ade‘itionel Commissioner, Raiper Division, Raipur in Revenue inspection Case No.A—23i99-2000, amrming me order dated 29.12.1995 passed by the Additional Coliector, Raipur in Revenue Appeal Case Ne.144iA—23i91-92, whereby the Additional Collector has gg g" ‘2.— affirmed the arder passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mahasamund dated 16.8.91 passed in Revenue Case No.1884A/23i87-88, whereby the Sub’ Divisiona! 0fticer has directed to return ihe rand re member of Scheduled Tribe Le. Dhan Singh or his legai heirs in case of his death. 2. i have heard iearned couneei for the parties, perused the arder impugned and other orders fried on behaif of ihe petitioners. As per record of the Sub Divieienai Officer, Mahesamund, the disputed iand was soid ta originai petitiener Dhani Ram after obtaining permission frem ihe Coiiecior as required under ,Seciion 170$ (1) of ihe Chhettisgerh Lend Revenue Code, 1959 {for shert 'the Cede’). Original petitioner hes submitted his sietemeni on 22.3.82 and en the basis of his statement, iinaily proceeding was initiated. Aiieged setter Bhan $ingh has not made his appearance before the Sub Divisional Officer, iviahasamund, but an! of sudden, his brother Remcharan has made his appearance before the Sub Divisional Gffioer and deposed that Dhen Singh was in habit of drinking liquor. He has specifically deposed that Dhan Singh hae sold the iand and has left the village. Finally the Sub Divisional Ofticer has directed to return the land to Dhan Singh or his legal heirs in case of his death. Virtualiy, in the present case. Dhan Singh or his legal heirs has not filed any application for return of land in terms of Section 170-8 (1) of the Code. Originai petitioner has duly notified the sale transaction as recfiiired under Seotion 170-8 {1) of the Code. He himself has appeared as a witness and has deposed that he has purchased the land after payment of consideration and after obtaining permission from the Collector by seller. Brother of Dhan Singh has also admitted the factum of sale deed and the fact that after setting the land Dhan singh has left the village for purchasing land in other viiiage. 5. These all evidence clearly reveal that the aforesaid transaction was not hit or effected by Section 170-5 (1) of the Code. The revenue authortties have committed illegaiity by passing the aforesaid orders of return of iand to unknown person who was not certain and it was not certain that whether he was alive or not. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Order impugned and orders passed by the Additional Collector, Raipur and the Sub Divisional Ofiicer, Mahasarnund are hereby quashed. No order as to costs. h) G) ‘7/ .Sdl- 11? Sharma ‘ Judge 9