CF0000110897 ^ 0 s s,^^, ^. IK T&3B HIGH COURT 0¥ MM5HYA FRM)£SH .W JAB&LPUR ^<7}<". M^P^Jto^ /,,,,t^_,^f_^199Z pet_itxqner Ras^ondaQ^s. J-192. /./ ProXash Ch^^dra'Parekh^ son -of Late Sbri.Premchaad Parekh^- resident of Sadar Bazar Raipur^. Bistrict-Raipur v VE RS U S -<^]*1, Yhe Board of Bevei-iue^M.P.Gwalior .^. The Addifcioi^al Com^issioner Raipuj: Division, Raipur/(M.P.) ^ 9 The Additional Collector^ Raipur cum ''* Coaipetenfc M3thority under Geiling on Agricuiture Holdings ^ct 196o<, 4. The Stafce of M.P. through Secretary.^ SSevemue Separtnient Ballabh Bhawan Bhopal» ' • /- ~f • v HJ'Z'ITION UNDE%,fflTICLES ^226/^227__^_CQ^S-nTUriON QF 11-3D I&^, IH_ TH3 I»iSTTER^ QE' Ca^LiyG, Oi-i, ,M3RICULTUj:<E HOUH.tKTS AC3L_196Q, ^ ,,^^^^^ ^^ ' ^ /y^...--^ ,y^,^^ V^J ^,,,^ '^^^s MIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILA3PUR Hon'ble Shri Justlce Prashant Kuinar W.P.NQ.1752of 1992 Chandra Parekh Versus The of Revenue ORDER Po^for ^-10-^10. 'i^.-^. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge 1^-10-^)10 ^h HIGH COURT QF CHHATTSSGARK AT BiLASPUR Bench: Hon'Ne Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mlshra W.P.No. 1752/1992 PETtTSONER Prakash Chandra Pare . RESPONDENTS The Board of Revenue and. others. Shri B.P. Sharma, counsel forthe petttloner. Shrl Ajay Dwjvedl, Deputy Govt.Advocate for the State/respondents No.2,3&4 PETITION UNDER ARTICi^ 22S ^227 OF THE CONSTITUTSON OF ORDER ^ .1Q.2Q181 Petitionw has chaSienged ttie tegality and vatidity of ^ie orders dated 01-12-19^ by the Addttiona! Commlssioner, Raipur (Anne>aire - E) and the order passed by ttie Board of Revenue on 11-11-1^1 (Annexure - F). By the ordsr (Annexure - E) the Additsonat CQmmissioner, Raipur has the orcter of ^ie Competent Auttionty dated 31-12-1^1 and has remandecl the matter for cie^isiQn in accordance Ntti law. (2) Facts of the case, In short, are that by order dated 31-12-1^1 Ihe ComE^tent Aufriority under Itie Chhatfisgarh Cesllng on AgricutturaS HoSdin^ Act, 19&0 hs.s held Ihat out of frie totel hokltngs admeasuring 271.09 the petitioner ss holdlng surplus {and only to tti©extent of 1.19 acres. On tie of report of ft*e Enqutry Officer fte Competent Autfiortty found ftiat ssn area of 111,68 acres are in possession of Shskrni Cuttivator and ttils area was also redueed from »iepe^tloners hoSdsngs. (3) The Additional Commtesioner reopened the ma^er by initiating sue 'moty revlston proceedlngs under Section 40 of the Act and IssuecS shwy -^.- 4 ir\ cause no^ce to ^e petitioner vlde (Annexure - C). In thls notlce it was men^oned that the area of 129.78 acres reduced from his hoJdiRQ is not In accordance wdh Saw m terms of S<^tion 6-8 of tie ChhatSisgarh CeHing on Agricut&iral HoSdlr^s {HRd Amendment) Act. 1976. The Add'^onal Commissioner proposed that an area of 164.63 acr^ shoutd have been decSared surptus. (4) The petitloner fited hls reply and ttiereafter the Additionai Commtssioner passsd the firet impugned order on 01-12-1^9 (Annexure - ? E). (n thts detaited order the AddttionaS Commlssioner found that frse total tand wlth the pe^ttoner was 3Q5A2 and the area of 129JS acre aSlowed In favour of Shskmi Cuttiv^Sor wss contrary to SecSion S-B of th@ IInd Amendment Act, 1S7S. The Additional Commsssloner dtd not agree witt^ the argument ralsed by the counsel for the petiSoner that provision of SectiQn 6-B was deSeted after tilie order w^ passed by the Competent Authortty, therefore, ttie bene^t accrued to ttie peistioner when the said provlsson mforee cannot be taken away and the matter canriQt be r»>pened. The Addl^onal Commissloner utiimatety set-aslcie the order passed by the Competent Auttiority on 31-12-1981 anc! remanded ttie matler fw ^sh d^ision. »' <s -(5) The petitioner preferred the revlsion before 1he Board of Rev^ue which wss dismlssed bytt^e order (Annexure - F) passed on 11-11-1991. (6) Shri B.P.Sharma, teamed counsel for ttie peWoner wouSd argue that S^t'on 6-B of ttie Amendment Act came into force in the year 1984, hence tt couSd not be used by the AddtSonat Commlsssoner for assdte an order / passed before 1^4. 1'^] '''1%..^^ v!'^,.£, IV 3- (7) The counseS appearing for the respondente could not make any submisslon as ttie return filed by 1he State Govemment te absotuteSy siSent on ttie of ttie case asif lt Is a dtspute between Iwo pnvate Indlvtduals. !t ss unfortunate that in matters perteiinlng to ttie Celllng on AgricuSturaS Holdin^ Act, 19^3 where the surpius $and, tf any, would be vest^ In the Steste, leamed State K>uns8S has not been able to ^sist the Court in Qie manner requffed »ntaw. The Offlcsf-ln-charge of the case has atso fited an afRdavst i^ wittioyt underetanding the Impact of tie provision conteined under ftts Act, 1960. (8) Be ttiat as it may, from the records st would appear that ths petiSoner was hoSding an area of ^)4.?5 acres and not 271 .€® acres which was sought to be Gorrected by ttie ^idltional Commissioner by reopening Ihe matter. (t ts atso to be seen friat an area of 129.78 acres in possesslon of Shlkml Cultlvator was wrQRgfy reduced from Ihe area hetd by the petttioner. Since ttie appomted for frse purposes of present cesSlny proceeding was 01-01- 1S71 and on that ttie total held by the petttioner was 222.39 acres out of v^ich 82.36 acres v^is found to fcle imgated, the totel area as converted snto un-irr^at^ arsa would be equivatent to 304.75 acres and Ihat It is from thls total area as on 01-01-1971 the deductabte area shouSd be ca!cutated < ; and deducted, but ths te-amed Competent Authority made dedyction from 271 .C^ acres. This Is a clear and apparent mistake af calculation macSe by the Competent Authorifry. (S) To wltti ttie pe^oner's contentlon regarcjing tt*e area under cuttivatson by Shit"nl Culfr/ator prov-isioR contained in Section 6-B offtie Act Ins^ted w.eJ. 24-01-1984 needs to be perused. The said |prwtston $s reprocluced for ready reference hereunder:- ^ 1 JJ -^- 7@-S. Accivsl Qf nght of oscupanQy teffsnt er Bhumfswsmi iinder eoeie to be vof'cf.- Wf^Q ss 9 conssQi^n^ of gwer? by a ^s/re ft^fer of tend compnsed sn Ns hokling m c€^^a\f^t^wQf ^^on 168 of ff]e Madhys Pad&sft Land ReverK®Csxfe, 1959 (NQ.2Q of 1959) rights ofsn occupsncy fenan^ or Bhumfswami, ss ^e case may &e, hsve accfued to ff^ Ses^e umter SSC^QH 169 orsecft^? 130 of fte sald Cocfe dimng ffte peraod commem;^ frDm^ •fs( Jstnuasy, 1971 andend?ng on ftoappomfedday, accroa/ofsych nghts shsf! fre wsd afKS of no tegai effecf whates^^r for the fKiFpo^s of ffws Act notwiffistsr^i'y any^sng coRfamed fn ff?fe Act orany o^her few for ^he ffme being m force orsnyjiK^m^t, d^ree ore^terofanycoyftj (10) By ttie above amendment ihe origlnal Section ©-Bhas been amended snth retrospectlve effect from ttie date of commencement of 8is principje Act. Sn tt^e sasd amendment ttie old ctause (iil) of SectlQn S was deSeted rlght from its incsption. The effect of that detetion Is ttiat the Act has never recognised tt^e rights of occupancy tenant as holders. The object of making 1^ls amendment was to nuStlfy the effort of misuse of Sections 169 and 190 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the mi^hfef CQmmstted by ttie hotders to take plea of Shtkmt Cuttsvator for defeating ttie object of Ceitii^ Act. (11) It has rightiy been ot^er/ed by tt^e Board of Reven'ue ttiat sf the so caded ShiRml Cultlvator were realty Shitanl's who hetd 129.78 acr^ of iand belonglng to ttie petitioner's, in ttieir own right, the petittoner's cannot claim any nght over Itiose lands, however none of the ShilOTis's have approached liie Courte when thelr iands were indycied sn ttte hoSdlr^s ofthe pelitioner. (12) tn v1ew of what has been discussed above, Ihe instent ^tition has no foree, it desewes to be and is hereby dismissed. j Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^