R- ^N> COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT (SB: Hon'bis Mr. T.P.SHARMA, J.) VjshVv'anath Prasad Ral and another Vs. Commlssloner, Biiaspur Divislon and others POST FOR PRONOUNCEIVIENT OF THE ORDER ON 15/7/2011 Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge :1<}:^S^- 1;^""^ ^ isf ^^M. I ^: ^'fti^.'-i% ? •^' ."y COURT OF CHHATTII PetitBORers WntPetJtlori_No,2§5_of_1997 1. Vishwanath Prasad Ral, son of late Shri Teerath Prasad, about 61 yrs. , Resporidents 2. Smt.Devbala, wlfe of Vlshwsnath Prasad Rai, Both are resldent of Visiage Roomga, P.S. i^arwahi, Tahsli Pendrarosd, Distt.BISaspur :M.P. (Now C,G.) Versus 1. Commissioner, Bllaspur Divlslon, BSIsspur :M.P. (Now C.G.) 2. Addltlonal Coiiector, Bllaspur. 3. Sub Djvisional Offlcer, Pendraroad, Distt.BISaspur. 4. Pah'arwan Singh, son of late Shri GuSab Slngh, resldsnt of viSlage Roomga, P.S.Marwahi, . Tahsij Pendraroad, DJstt.BllaspurM.P. (No,v C.G.) (Vvrit Petition under ArticSe 227' of the Constitution of India) fvlr.K.A.Ansari, Senior Advocate with Mr.M.K.Sinha; counsei for the petltloners. IVIr.Sumit Jhanwar, Panel Lawyer for respondsnts No.1 to 3/State. Nons present for respondent No.4. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) (Deljvered on 15-7-2011) 1. By thls petltion under Artscle 227 of the Constltutlon of Indla, the petitloners have challengect the iegallty and propriety of the order dated 7.1.1997 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Commlssioner, Biiaspur Div'lsEon, Biiaspur, in Revlsion Case No.31/A-23/1995-96, whereby the Commissloner has reversed the order dated 30.5.96 passed by the Additsonai Coliector, Biiaspur, In Appeai Ca.se No.52/A-23/'93-94 and restored the order dated 31 .3.1994 passed by the Sub Dtvisional Ofi'tcer, Pendra Road in Case No.3/A-23/93-94, vv'hereby the Sub DJvssional Officer, Pendra Road has dec!ared the transaction of the iand made by •^•—^' !{.K^;;.". • ''.-.' 1^' ..t! - "^ '•;; " ^•-•^ 2. 4. father of respondent No.4 3.s nuli and void under Section 170-8 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959. 1 have heard Seaned counsel for the parties, perused the orders impugned and other documents filed on behaif of the petstloners. As per documents and orders Impugned, the present petitioners have purchased the land after obtainlng due permlssion. to seii the land from the members of an aborjgina! tribe namely, Rama, Pooran Slngh and Khuman Slngh whom origlnal owner Gulab Slngh, member of an aboriglnal tribe had soid the Eand in dispute. After amendment In Sectlon 170-B of tne C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 the petitioners have submittsd their statements as requlred in Section 170-3 of the C.G. Lsnd Revenue Code befor'e the Sub Dlvlslonal Officer whlch was dusy Inqulred. and heid that seli was not sn contraventjon of the provisions of Sectlon 165(6) ofthe C.G. Land Revenue Code. Thereafter Gujab Slngh has filed clviE suit before the Civil Judge Ciass-i, Bllaspur sgainst aileged Rama, Pooran Ssngh and Khumsn Singh and the present petltioners jnciudlng Dharamprakash which vvas dlsmissed in defauSt and finaliy It was not restored. After dsath of Guiab Slngh, respondent No.4 Pahaiwan Slngh flled an appllcation under Sectlon 170-B ofthe C.G> Land Revenue Code before the Sub Divisionsi Officer, Pendra Road for decSaring the transactlon as null and void on the ground that Gulab Singh has not sold the land to Rama, Pooran Slngh and Kumsn Singh, therefore, any subsequent transaction to a person not belongsng to an abonginal tribe is nul! and void and has aiso prayed for restoratlon of possesslon. Vide aforesaid orders, the aforesaid competent authorities have declared the transactlon as nuil and vold and dlrected for restoratlon of possesslon. Learned counsei for the petitioners submltted that members of an aboriglnal tribs have purchased the iand from 8 member of an abongina! tribe i.e. father of respondent No.4 which was In sccordance wlth iaw and aforesaid three purchasers i.e. Rama, Pooran Singh and Khuman Slngh, members of an aboriginal tribe have sold the iands to the petltloners snd Dharamprakash after obtainlng due permlssion under Ssctlon 165(6) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code. Theresfter they hsve also furnlshed statements as requlred under Section 170-B of the C.G.. Land Rsvenue Code before competent authority which has been duiy recorded by the competent authority and after satisfysng procedures were dropped. Guiab vr 6. 7. 8. Slngh aiso fiied CEVJI suit before Clvll Judge Ciass-1, Bliaspur, In. which he has cialmed that he has not soid any iand to Rama, Pooran Sjngh and Khumans'ingh or these petitloners, but It was finaSly dssmlssed for non-prosecution. After death of GuSab Slngh his son respondent No.4 has fjied aforesaid appllcation which was contrary to iaw and contrar^ to cSalm of hls father. The competent authorities ^vere under obligatlon to:- provide compiete opportunjty of hearing and to make compiete inqujry'; especlaESy when the lands were purchased after due permission from the competent authority under Section 155(6) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code and the fact that they have aiso submitted their statements/written as required undsr Sectlon 170-B ofthe C.G. Land Revenue Code, but the competent authorities have not inqulred the matter and passed cryptic orders, thereby they have committed an ilEegaiity. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3/State opposed the petjtion and submltted that the competent authority was empowered to Inquire all'transacttons falis under the purview of Section 170-B of the C.G. Land Revenue Code. After provlding opportunity of hearing, the competent authority has passed the aforesaid orders. Vvhiie passlng such orders the competent authoritles have not committed any jitegality In exercise of such revlsional jurisdiction. Procedurai trregularity or lElegailty may be the subject-matter. Sn exercise of superv'isor^ jurlsdiction the competent authoritles are requlred to examlne the jliegai!ty of the order passed by the revenue Courts jnciuding any procedural, iapses and per^ersity. The aforesaid orders impugned reveai that complete opportunity of hearing 'nas been provlded to the parties and after considering t'ne materiaS produced on behajf of the partsss, revenue authorities have passed such orders. On ciose. scrutiny of the order impugned and other documents, 1 do not flnd any procedurai iapses, Irreguiarity or IISegaiity commltted by the authorlties whlie passlng such orders warranting any interference in exercise of supervjsory jurisdlctlon. Consequently, the petitlon is llable to be dismissed and it ss hereby dlsmisssd. No order ss to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge •^