p'v^<<?->" y.-" ^'s^y^ COURT FEES EXEMPTEO BY NOT1FICATION N0. W6WD-2870!W- B/C.G^OS/ASSPECIFIED iniSCHEDULE £, OFTHECOURTFEESACTW70 .IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. t]^ /2010. SIU State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, D. K. S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Versus Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (Circuit Court, Raipur (CG). 2. Smt. Suhawan Bai, W/o Hirau Satnami, R/?l Village - Telibandha (Purena), Raipur, Tahsil and District, Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITOIN UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTJTUTIQN OF INDIA. :i)1i ^;s^,.,.^^.s^: ^if^^^ »vMsteSts s»as»sa^¥:: ^M 51 I^Hi fv^pmqo] .nd^^^^ap^ p^- f •"•"^=^l"sqs^y 9Awms^d3sres^^ qSna^ ^iJ [P^SO] reg ireMBqng^ ^.13 t ^ ^/- s^^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH^LT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra WritPetition (227) No.116of2010 State of Chhattisgarh versus Board of Revenue and another ORDER Postfor A8 -1-2011 Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ,?>;"TaS, Mi << • o<-t ::-sf^'y^' xy HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAF'ffl AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No.116 of 2010 /"\^ Petitioner State of Chhattisgarh versus Respondents Board of Revenue and another Present: Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State/petitioner. None for respondent No.2 though served. Writ Petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India ORDER (Passed on 58 January, 201 1) The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question the orders passed by the Board of Revenue on 16-2-2009 in Revenue Revision Case No.A/14/R/B-121/132/2008 (Annexure P-1) and the order dated 1-12-2009 in Review Petition NO.RW/14/R/B-121/60/2009 (Annexure P-2). Both the orders shall hereinafter be referred to as revisional order Annexure P-1 and review orderAnnexure P-2, respectively. By the revisional order, the Board of Revenue has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division on 23-10-2008 and has directed for recording of the name of respondent No.2 Suhawanbai (dead), through her legal representative Manohar Satnami as owner of the land after deleting the word "charagan" from the revenue records. V 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that the respondent No.2 moved an application before the Commissioner, Raipur Division '•».> •/ under Section 237 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (henceforth 'the Revenue Code') for changing the entries in the revenue records by deleting the word "charagan" therefrom. It is the case of respondent No.2 that her father Ramprasad was holding 1.668 hectares of land bearing Khasra No.442 at Village Puraina, Tahsil and District Raipur. The other child of his father namely her brother Pitamber died issuetess on 1-1-1980 and as such she is the sole surviving legal heir of Ramprasad Satnami. When she contacted the Halka Patwari on 4-8-2008 for recording of her name in place of Pitamber Satnami in the revenue records, she became aware that word "charagan" has been entered in the revenue records and her prayer for grant of certified copies was not accepted. According to respondent No.2, the land was never recorded as charagan in the revenue records of the year 1929-30 to 1954-1955 and as such the entry of the word "charagan" without permission of herfather or brother and without approval ofthe Gram Sabha is illegal. 3. The Commissioner, Raipur Division by his order dated 23-10- 2008 (also mentioned as 23-10-2009 in paragraph 1 in the revisional order of Board of Revenue) rejected the application preferred by respondent No.2. However, the revision application preferred by the respondent No.2 has been allowed by the Board of Revenue by revisional order Annexure P-1 and the subsequent review petition preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed vide review order Annexure P-2. 4. Referring to the proceedings drawn by the Consolidation Officer, Raipur under the provisions of the Central Provinces Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1928 (Act No.VIII of 1928) (henceforth 'the Act') filed as Annexure P-3 in the writ petition, learned State Counsel would submit that father of respondent No.2 was one of the signatory to the proposal for consolidation and the land was recorded as charagan as a result of the consolidation proceeding drawn fpr the village earlier known as Chamar Puraina and as such the said proceeding having become final and binding on all the holders of the village, and the submission of application by respondent No.2 was not only mala fide but also misuse of the provisions of law to derive undeserving benefit inasmuch as the said land has now become part of prime land of Raipur Town and values in crores of rupees and by removing the word "charagan" respondent No.2 would alienate the property. 5. This Court had issued notices to the legal heir of respondent No.2 namely Manohar Satnami who has not entered appearance in spite of service of notice. It is to be noted that one Santosh Pujari had earlier moved an application for intervention on the ground that his grand father was Malgujar of Village Puraina and the said Ramprasad, father of respondent No.2 and his son Pitamber were servant of his grand father and their names were recorded in the revenue record though he is in possession of the land. As the said Santosh Pujari had no locus and was not a party before the Courts below at any point of time, the said application for intervention was ^ withdrawn by his counsels with liberty to move appropriate proceeding before the appropriate Court. 6. On a reading of the order passed by the Board of Revenue it would appear that direction for deletion of the entry "charagan" in the revenue records has been ordered only on the ground that no document has been submitted to demonstrate that the consent of the owner was taken before making entry of the word "charagan"in the revenue records. 7. The petitioner has filed copies of the consolidation proceedings drawn by the Consolidation Officer under the provisions of the Act as Annexure P-3. The revenue order-sheet of the said consolidation proceedings records that on 27-7-1939, 67 permanent holders of Mouja Chamar Puraina moved application for consolidation of their agricultural holdings. The Consolidation Officer registered the case, drawn the proceedings, prepared a programme of consolidation for the year 1942 and thereafter issued proclamation as required under the rules of consolidation framed under Section 29 of the Act. The scheme of consolidation was made final on 11-5-1943. At page 33 ofthe paper-book, application signed by the villagers has been placed on record and at page 37 of the paper-book, the proclamation is available. At page 38 of the paper-book, the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 3-5- 1943 is available in which it is mentioned that the total number of permanent holders in the village are 77. As earlier noted, 67 permanent holders moved the application for consolidation. Father 'of respondent No.2, namely, Ramprasad is one of the signatory, whose thumb impression is available at page 34 of the paper-book. The final order regarding confirmation of scheme of consolidation is at page 39 of the paper-book. Thus, it would clearly appear that consolidation proceeding was duly drawn and completed under the provisions of the Act. 8. Section 6 of the Act makes provision regarding application for consolidation of holdings. Sub-section (4) thereof provides that if any scheme of consolidation of holdings is confirmed, it shall be binding on the applicants and those who have agreed to the consolidation of their holdings and on any persons who may subsequently be entitled to hold or occupy the land affected by the scheme. Section 11 of the Act makes provision regarding confirmation of the scheme and Section 12 of the Act provides for correction of recordof rights after the consolidation is confirmed. Under Section 15 of the Act, provision has been made that no instrument is necessary in order to give effect to a transfer involved in carrying out any scheme of consolidation of holdings. Sections 21,22,25,26 and 27 of the Act are germane for the present petition and are reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "21. A permanent holder shall have the same rights in the holding or land allotted to him in pursuance of a scheme of consolidation as he had in his original holding. ; 22. (1) If the holding of any permanent holder brought under the scheme of consolidation is burdened with any lease, rnortgage or other incumbrance, such lease, mortgage or other incumbrance shall be transferred and shall attach to the holding allotted to him under the scheme or to such part of it as the consolidation officer, subject to any rules that may be made under section 29, may have appointed in preparing the scheme; and, thereupon, the lessee, mortgagee or other incumbrancer, as the case may be, shail cease to have any right in or against the land from which the lease, mortgage or other incumbrance has been transferred. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 13, the consolidation officer shall, if necessary, put any lessee or any mortgagee or other incumbrancer entitled to possession, by warrant, into possession of the holding or part of a holding to which his lease, mortgage or other incumbrance has been transferred under sub- section (1). 25. No appeal shall lie from any order passed under this Act or the rules made thereunder or from any order passed by the consolidation officer under sections 13, 36, 46, 47, 93, 94, 98 and 100 of the Central Provinces TenancyAct, 1920. 26. The State Government may, at any time, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by any officer under this Act, call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such officer and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit: Provided that it shall not vary or reverse any order affecting any question of right between private persons without having given to the parties interested notice to appear and to be heard in support of such order. 27. No civil court shall entertain any suit instituted, or application made, to obtain a decision or order in respect of any matter which the State Government or any officer is, by this Act, empowered to determine, decide or Xdispose of." ^ s" 7 9. On a perusal of the above quoted provision of the Act it would be apparent that when the holding of any permanent holder is burdened with an encumbrance, he shall cease to have any right in or against the land from which the encumbranCe has been transferred meaning thereby that when charagan is mentioned in the revenue record as a result of confirmation of consolidation, such encumbrance is binding on the holder of the land and he ceases to have any right in or against the land so encumbranced. It is further apparent that the order confirming the scheme of consolidation is not appealable as provided under Section 25 of the Act but is revisable under Section 26 of the Act and further that no civil Court has jurisdiction to challenge any action taken by the State Government or any officer in exercise of powers under the Act. 10. From the above, it would be clear that firstly application under Section 237 of the Revenue Code submitted by respondent No.2 was not maintainable before the Commissioner, Raipur Division and further that in view of provision contained in Section 22 of the Act, the holder of the land ceases to have any right once the consolidation is confirmed and the word "charagan" is entered in the revenue record in pursuance to the confirmation of consolidation scheme. 11. The Board of Revenue has acted with gross and manifest illegality while allowing the revision preferred by respondent No.2. The Board of Revenue has not at all referred to the proceedings under the Act though the memo submitted by Collector, Raipur (Annexure P-6) clearly referred that consolidation proceeding was ,^—^ g -^;^;?'y*. %, f %>.,.. 'wl^ drawn and the land was included in Samilat Charagan on the basis of consent accorded by the land holders. 12. For all the foregoing reasons, this writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 are set aside. Revenue records shall continue to mention the word Samilat Charagan over the subject Nistari Government land. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal