'vsy y ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT mLASPUR W.P. (Cl N0. 3858/2007 Petittoner Budhram, S/o Sonu Madia, 61 yrs. R/o ViU. Utoaar, The. Jagdatpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.). Versus Respoadents 1. Soaai, Wd/o Lakhmu 2. Chaitu, S/o Gada 3. Pilaiam, S/o Maagat Sai Res. no. 1 to 3 R/o Vffl. Hatkachora, Teh. Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.). 4. Ishwar Rao, S/o Late Joglu Naidu, R/o Balaji Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.). 5. The Board of Rcvenue (C.G.). BUaspur Circuit Court, J^gdalpur 6. The Collector, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.). 7. The Sub Divisional Officcr (REV.) Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.). WRIT PETITION U/A 227 OF THB COK8TITUTION OP mDIA. (SB :Hoa'bte Bto. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate with Shri Sameer Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 3. .^ Shri Akhil Agrawal, P.L. for the State/respondents No. 6 & 7. None for tlie fespondents No. 4 & 5. ORDBR (Passedon 20/09/2011) By ttus petition under Articlc 227 of the Constitution of ludia petitioner has chaUenged the lcgalily and proprie^r of fhe order dated 26/4/2007 passed by Board of Rcveaue, Chhattisgarh (Circuit Court, Jagdalpur) iu revenue revisioa case No. RN/01/R/A-23/832/2006 affimung the onler dated 14/6/2006 passed by Additional Collector, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.O.) in Rev. Appeal No. 08/A-23/2004-05 affuinmg fhe oider dated 25/4/2005 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Ra.) J^dalpur in Ra. Case No. ll/A-23/2002-03 whereby Sub Divisional Officer, Jagdalpur a coiapetent authority has directed to retum the possession of fhe Jaad to legal represeutatives of Lakhinu and RiAna. E ^^ 1 81E Sloti ^ 2-- 2. Shri PrafuU N. Bharat, Advocate for fhe petttianer, Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate wlth Shri Saineer Shrivastava, Advocate for fhe respondents No. 1 to 3 & Shri Aldul Ayrawal, P.L. fer fhe State/respondents No. 6 & 7 are heard. 3. Copy of atl the ordcrs impugaed aud copy of fhe statement of fhe witnesses perused. 4. Learaed counsel for the petitioner submits fhat ia ordcr to prove the case under Section 170-B of the Chliatdsgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 ( ia short 'the Code'j respondents No. l to 3 are reqiured to prove fhe fact ttiat they are legal represcntatives of Lakhinu aad Rukna aad traasaction one of not sell but was fiaudulent transaction ofinortgage. 5. In the present case respondents No. 1 to 3 have failed to prove the fa.et that fhey are legal representatives of Laklunu and Rukna. Respondent No. 1 Sonai wife of Lakhmu herself has not exanniued before the Revenue Courts to prove traasaction ofher than sell. In fhese circiunstauces all the Revenue Courts have cortunittec an iBegalily. 6. On the other hands, kamed counsel for the respondeats No. 1 to 3 opposed the petition aad subimts that present petiticmer has not taken such objection fhat respondente No. 1 to 3 are not legal representatives of Rukaa. Non examiaation Soaai is not fatal to respondents No. 1 to 3, afler due inquuy Sub Divisional Officer has directed forretum ofpossessionto legal represeatatives ofLakhmu aad Rukna. By passiag such order Sub Divisional Officer has not committed an iBegaUty requirmg any taterference m exercise of supervisoiy jurisdiction iu terms of under Article 227 of tbe Constitation of Indja. Leamed counsel for the State/respoadents No. 6 & 7 Shri Aldul Agrawal supported the contention of the \ leamed counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3. ^' a§pnf BUUBqS 'd "1 -/PS ^ "1 IOS/II /S ao mdiBpSBp '.(33®0 IBtioTSiAiQ qng STCT axojaq ^uasatd KtBTOad cq pa^oanp are sgiRJBd •s^soo 01 se -ispiio ON •qsa.gs xapio Wf^ ssed o»pUB sarpBd aq^ qioq o^ 8uueaq jo ^iutqjoddo a(aidrooo gaipiAcud joj jndiepSBp 'jaoggo frsviaiswiQ qng aip cq^ qoBq papuBmai si asBO 'paqsanb Iqa.iaq aiB jtnd{8p8Bp ('By) jaoigo {BdoisiAta qng ^q passBct SOOe/t'/SB pa^^P pauSnduH japio pvs (•0'3) JK»SBg ^outSTQ 'jndiepSBr <J(qo3i[[oo lEaoc^ippv iq passsd 900Z/9/i?l pafBp pauSnduxt japio '{jndiBpSep 'l-inoQ ^nouio) qjeSsinwptO 'anijOAay jo piieog Aq passiBd 2,OOS/t'/9Z; pai^P paiiSndun -opio 'paMOiie jtqa-isq ST paB psAOHe sq <x^ ssAiasap aoitpad '^uanbasaoo •XfCf'eSsyt vs paupxroioo 3A8q s»jnco anioAay wy^ 118 reaos jo aoaspiAa AIB inoipjA vc3A3 paaSnduii japio SiitssBd pae Aituiq.ioddo qons SidpiAcud V>v SQ •Sfcvmfioddo qons papiAcud iou seq J3o®oIBttOTSTAia qng ^nq sapjed sq»tpoq 01 8auBaq jo Aflniq.Eoddo w&wit-aow -ouop.i^ad o^ sassaiqMA presaioje jo uoTpBBnnexa sscuo jo .ftTmifJoddo vs apiAcud o» aoi^BSiiqo japan SBA jao®o T®tioTSIATa qnS aspMa>[ii nopoBsit&.c). ^aapipnag SBA ^nq yas ^oa SBM noiioBsaBaq fWQ yye} sq) pire Bicspia pHB ntirqs|WT| paseaoapjo ssARBtuasMdai {eSai ^pao 8B saApsmaqi. sAcud 04 aoi)s8iiqo .opim aoA e o^ t "ON s^tiapiHodsai saaitre^stanoiTto aaavf^ ni 'pioq c^. paysycta asiMjaiRo SBA aq qoiqA j£(J3d<ud pa^ndsip tao.g jaaoitpad jo iq8u atp Sup.saATp JO 3SB3 B SI Siqj, •.laiaotfifad sq^ a). USATS naaq seq nopsaniiexa ssoiio jo ^ffticvytoSdo ou siesAai .laTp-tig l.uaTCo^^g •uopoesnK4 jo ajmyBii aip aiAcud 0) ssstc^tA SB jiasuaq pattmrexa ioa seq reaos "®"5t"aJ° saAti^aasaadai fe'Sa^ ^[iio .10 wrspig jo saAflKtaasaudai leSai axg Sav^ jaq^aqA mapig TRIA uoiiB{ai i.noq® 8i[(ioAtiB pa(Bts ^aa a&iaq £ % g •ON s^uapaodsai IW.R ^esAai 'paiigndun e.iapxo aqi. jo Adoo pae sassaiqta jo visoacaifs^s aip jo AIoQ '/^ •i.