IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION NO. 1m 9 /2004 PETITIONERS 1. Shrikant S / o. Chandrasekhar Kolta, aged about 4O years, Pandeylal, aged about 82 years, S/o. Chandrasekhar Kolta Both are resident of — Baghadola, Tehsil and Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through : the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. The Collector, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG) 4. Rudra Prasad, son of Shri Mahadeo Kolta, aged about 50 years, resident of village Baghadola, Tehsil and Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) @ £ ‘ 5. Gorakhlal, son of Shri Mahadev, aged about 46 years, resident of village Baghadola, Tehsil and Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) Priya Bai, ‘Widow ‘ of Late Mahadeo, aged about. 8O years, resident of village Baghadola, Tehsil and Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). » 7. Amruta Bai, aged about 55 years, wife of Ladho, resident of Village- Thakurpati, Tehsil and Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) " 8. Dhobnin Bai, Wife of Gokulchand aged about 60 years, resident of village — Lowing, Tehsil and District — Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) ' 9. Sambhoo Ram Agrawal, son of Shri Biswambhr Kedia, aged about 75 years resident of Ramniwas Chowksey Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) road, RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,‘ PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS: As per the cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: As per the cause title. § HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra w Writ Petition No.2179 of 2004 Shrikant and another VGI’SUS The State of Chhattisgarh and others ORDER Post for 13-1 —2011 Sdl— Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition No.2179 of 2004 Petitioners ' Shrikant and another versus Respondents The State of Chhattisgarh and others Present: Shri Saif Khan, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Akhilesh Daipati, counsei for respondents No.4 to 8. Shri M.K.Bhaduri, counsel for respondent No.9.. Writ Petition under Articie 227 of the Constitution of India ORDER (Passed on i?“ January, 2011) The petitioners have called in question the legality, validity and correctness of the appellate order passed by the Collector, Raigarh 'on 12-7-2004 (Annexure P-1) affirming the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raigarh on 30-1-2004 (Annexure P-2) under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (henceforth ‘the Act’). 2. The petitioners have purchased the subject land from one Sambhoo Ram Agrawal, who is the lender of money as defined / under Section 2(d) of the Act. Respondents No.4 to 8 are the xv R1 e A \' 2 successors in interest of original holder of agricultura| land Mahadeo. Respondents No.4 to 8 shall hereinafter be referred as ‘the holder’. 3. Facts of the case, in short, are that the holders obtained ioan of Rs.1 ,000/- from Sambhoo Ram Agrawai, the respondent No.9 and executed a sale-deed on 3-4-1970 as security for the ioan transaction. The sale-deed was executed with respect to land a bearing Khasra No.175/2 area 1 acre. According to the holder, it was agreed between Mahadeo and Sambhoo Ram Agrawal that Mahadeo shall pay Rs.20/- per month as interest, however, the said Sambhoo Ram AgraWal illegally got mutated his name in the revenue records. Mahadeo made a request for return of land, which was denied by Sambhoo Ram Agrawal, upon which, an application under Section 5 of the Act was submitted before the Sub-Divisional Ofncer. 4. On receipt of notice, Sambhoo Ram Agrawal filed his reply denying all the allegations and stated that the subject transaction was a genuine sale-transaction and he has never advanced any loan' to the holder. lt has been mentioned in the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Ofiicer that witnesses were examined on behalf of the holder, however, Sambhoo Ram Agrawal, in spite of repeated opportunities, did not produce any witness. The Sub-Divisional Ofncer, on the basis of statements of the holder’s witnesses, namely, Rudra Prasad, Madan and Anchal,Vconcluded that the said transaction was entered and a deed was executed as security for repayment of loan. The Sub-Divisional Officer also obtained report " from Tahsildar, who also submitted his report dated 25-8-1981 to the i l r t Vs» #l Ms33'w ass a? r "x .3,» ,r'T/ h 3 effect that the said transaction is Ioan transaction. It was also found that one contemporaneous agreement Ex.A-1 was executed between the parties on the date of saie-deed, i.e., on 3-4-1970, wherein respondent No.9 had agreed that in the event the Ioan amount is repaid within three years, he shall execute a registered saie—deed in favour of the holder. This agreement Ex.A—1 has been ‘ proved by Rudra Prasad and his witnesses. It has also been recorded that when respondent No.9 moved application for mutation of his name in the revenue records, objection was raised by the successors of the original holder Mahadeo and initially name of respondent No.9 was not recorded but subsequently he succeeded in getting his name recorded vide Sanshodhan No.36? dated 7-5- 1973. Thus, on the basis of statement of witnesses, report of Naib- Tahsildar and the contemporaneous agreement Ex.A—1, the Sub- Divisional Officer recorded a categorical finding that the sale—deed was executed as security for repayment of loan and thus the said Sambhoo Ram Agrawal becomes ‘lender of money’ as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act and the original holder is the ‘holder of agricultural land’ as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act and the subject transaction becomes a ‘prohibited transaction of loan’ as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. The Sub—Divisional Officer, thus, directed reversion of land in favour of the holder after declaring the subject transaction as null and void. The appellate authority of the Collector has affirmed the order ‘passed by the Sub—Divisional / i Officer (Revenue). / / // 4 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners were not granted opportunity of hearing before passing the order though they have purchased the land from Sambhoo Ram Agrawal by registered sate—deed dated 18-2-1988 and their names have been duly mutated in the revenue records. He would also submit that the transaction was in fact a genuine sale-transaction and the finding recorded by the authorities are perverse. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3 and respondents No.4 to 8 have argued that the Sub-Divisionai Officer as well as the Collector have passed l reasoned order on the basis of appreciation of evidence and no interference in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is called for. Learned counsel for respondent No.9 has supported the case of the petitioners. 7. On perusal of the order-sheets of the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer, it would appear that the application under Section 5 of the Act was presented on 13~2-1979, whereas the sale- deed executed by Sambhoo Ram Agrawal in favour of the petitioners was executed on 18-2-1988. Thus, prima facie, the sale- deed appears to have been executed to defeat the right and entitlement of the holder and that too during‘pendency of the proceedings. Even otherwise, the matter in issue was regarding the validity of the transaction between the original holder Mahadeo and Sambhoo Ram Agrawal on 3-4-1970 and once it has been found /// that the said transaction is void, the petitioners, who are subsequent purchasers from Sambhoo Ram Agrawal step into the shoes of ..“ia7 a A M 5 Sambhoo Ram Agrawal and cannot have a better claim on the land than Sambhoo Ram AgrawaL It is not the case of the petitioners that even Sambhoo Ram Agrawai was not noticed by the Sub- Divisional Ofncer. Thus, this Court is not convinced with the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that notice to the petitioners was necessary because the lender of money Sambhoo Ram Agrawal was noticed and due opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. 8. This Court has perused the impugned orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the Collector. Both the authorities have appreciated the entire facts and circumstances of the case including the statement of witnesses and the report of Naib- Tahsildar. The finding that the subject transaction is void, is, thus, based on pure appreciation of evidence 9. ln Ouseph Mathai and others vs. M. Abdul Khadir, (2002) 1 SCC 319, State Through Special Cell, New Delhi vs. Navjot Sandhu alias Afshan Guru and others, (2003) 6 SCC 641 and YeshWant Sakhalkar and another vs. Hirabat Kamat Mhamai and another, (2004) 6 SCC 71, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court will not convert itself into a Court of appeal and substitute its own finding by appreciation of evidence. Applying the said principles and keeping in view the object of the Act, which reads thus: / //\ “An act to better economic condition of holders of agricultural land in the weaker sections of the people by . 6 providing further relief from agricultural indebtedness by nullifying the land grabbing designs resorted to in many a form by lenders of money while and after extending credit to them and matters connected therewith. Whereas a hoider of agricuiturai iand in the weaker sections of the people is quite often compelled to seek Ioan from private money lending agencies to meet his various obligations of urgent nature: And whereas such private agencies seldom if ever advance loan to him without security of land, his only wherewithal: And whereas due to ignorance of niceties of law or l urgency of financial need or both, he falls an easy prey to ’1 out of the documents which he executes or which they got executed from him accordingly by way of security for the loan: And where it is necessary to relieve the holders of agricultural land in the weaker sections of the people from l such exploitation by nullifying such past transactions of loan as also to put a stop to such transactions." 10. This Court finds no substance in this writ petition as the findings arrived at by the authorities are born out from the record as nothing has been pointed out or substantiated to prove that the order is perverse or illegal in any manner. 11. Consequently, the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia fails and is hereby dismissed. Gopal /