• IM HiGH GOURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BtLASPUR Writ Petttion (Art.227) NO.S668 of 2010 Petitioner Non-applicant Respondents Applicants (i) (H) (iii) (JV) (V) (vi) (vii) (viii) (!X) 2. Punuram Sahu Died and deleted. Devantln Bai W/o Late Punu Ram Sahu aged about 62 years. Usha Bai W/o Late Leeia Ram S/'o Punu Ram aged about 40 years Ku.Santoshi D/o Leeja Ram S/o Punu Ram aged about 19 years Teejeshwari D/o Leeia Ram S/o Punu Ram aged about 16 years Tikeshwari D/o LeoSa Ram S/o Punu Ram aged about 12 years Payai D/o Leeia Ram S/o Punu Ram aged about 10years Anamika D/o Leeia Ram S/o Punu Ram aged about 7 years (iv) to (vii) reprosentod by their naturai guardian mother Smt.Usha Bal W/o Late Leela Ram S/o Punu Ram aged about 40 years, Toran Lai S/o Punu Ram aged about 38 years, Ramkumar S/o Punu Ram aged about 32 years ASi resjdents of Vlijage Jenjara Tahsli Rajim District Rajpur (C.G.) Versus Batdauram, Qta Chain Singh Kamvar, Kamalnarayan. Kanwar S/o Chain Singh 3. Karanj BaJ Died 4. State of Chhattisgarh, through the CoNector. Raipur (C.G.) 5. Chhattisgarh Revenuo Board, Circuit Court, Raipur (C.G.) 6. The Additlonal Commisssoner, Ralpur, District-RaJpur (C.G.) J/ -A^'' -^- ^^ 7. The Coiiector, Raipur District-Raipur 8. The Additionai Coiiector, Gariyaband, DSstrict-Raipur (C.G.) 9. The Sub-Divisionai ofBcer, Gariyaband, District-Raipur (C.G.) 10. Tahsitdar, Rajim, District-Raipur (C.G.) CWrit Petition under ArticSe 227 oftho Constitution of India) Mr.Hari Shankar Patei, counsel for the petitioners. Mr.Pankaj Shrivastava, counse! for respondent No.1. None present for respondent No.2. Ms Sangeeta Mishra, Panei Lawysr for respondlents No.4 and 6 to 10/State. (SB: Hon'bte Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) ORDER (5-9-2011) 1. By this writ petition under ArticiQ 227 of thQ Constitutlon (rf indsa the petitloners havo chaitenged the iegaSity & proprs^y of the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revenue Rsvision Cass N0.502/A-23/2002-03, whereby 'sn exercise of revisional jurisdtetion the Board of Revenue has afTirmed the order dated 20.4.1999 passed bythe Additionai Coiiector, Gariyaband in Revsnue Cas© No.54/A/22y98-98, affirming the order dated 24.2.95 passed by th®Sub Divisionai Gfficer, Gariyaband in Revenue Cas© No.7,W23/'87-88, whereby the Sub Divisional Offscer has directed for return of th® iand which was in possession of predocessoMn-tstSe of the prosent petstsonors In coniravention to the provislons of Sectlon 170-B ofthe Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (for short 'Code'). 2. i have heard Searnsd counsei for the parties, porused tfie order Impugned and copy of other orders fiisd on behalf ofthe potitioners. 3. On©Chain Singh, father of respondents Mo.1 and 2 ent©r@dinto contract reiatjng to disputed land situated at Viiiage Jenjara, Tahsii Rajim. On 17.10.1975 some document in the styte of sale deed was executed, showing signature of true seiier namely Karanj Bai Wd/o of Umed Singh l^1> and Chain Singh in favour of Punu Sahy. After amcndmont In Section 170-B of the Code, Punu Sahu has notified the transaction as rsquired under Section 170-B of the Code. Thereafter at the instance cf respondents No.1 and 2 during ijfe-time of their father Chain Slngh, proceoding undor Section 170WB of the Code was initiated, in which they have ciaimed for return oftheiand to them, in which Chajn Singh was examined and vide order dated 28.3.19^ (Annexure P/14) the Sub Divisional Officer, Gariyaband has dirscted for return of the iand to original seiler Karanj Bai and Chain Singh. Sam©was chaltenged by the original petitioner Punu Ram bofore tho Additional Coitector, Ralpur m Case No.26A/23/88-89 and the AdditionaS Coliector. Raipur vide order dated 1.5.90 has remanded th© case, whach was affsrmed by the AdditSona! Commissioner, Raipur vide order dated 11.4.1991 (Annexure P/1S) in Revenu®Revision Case No.351/A-23/"89-90, which was again chaSSenged by rospondents No.1 and 2 beforo tho Board of Revenus. Madhya Pradssh, Gwaiior and vide order dated 28.5.1992 (Annexure P/17) the Board of Revenue has afRrmed the order. Thoreafler the matter was again inquired by the Sub Divisional Officer, Gariyaband in Revenue Case No.7/A/23/87°88 and vide order dated 24.2.95 (Annexure P/18) th©Sub Divisionai Officer has directed for return of the iand to Karan] Bai and Chaln St'ngh. Same was challenged by o^riginai purchaser Punu Ram before tho Additional Coll@ctor, Gariyaband in Revenue Case No.54/A/23/98-99 and fhe Additional Coiiector, Gariyaband v'ade order dated 20.4.99 (Annexure P/20) a^lrmed the ord©r passed by the Sub Divisionai Officer, Gariyabandt 24.2.95, which was again chaiienged by the originai purchas©rPunuram and the Boafd of Revenue has aiso afRrmed the ord©rpassed by the revenue authonSles vide order impugned. 4. initiaiiy as per the Code, the order passed by th©Commissioner in revision was finai, but during the aforesaid period, post of the CommissJoner was aboljshed and alf the revisions pending beforo the Commissioners were stand transferred to the Board of Revenue, therefore, th© present revisSon before the Board of Revenu® was maintainable. }^ -4-- 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that original purchaser Punuram has objected before aii the authoritjes r©{atingto malntainability of th©appiication on the ground that origina! seiier has not fiiod any appiication and during Jife-time of orjginal seiier thQJr sons havo fiiect th© aforesaid application, which was not maintainabie. Learned counsel further submits that original purchaser has notified the transaction, but same was not inquired by the Sub Divlsionai OfRcer. Even otherwise, evidence of Chain Slngh was not worth of consideration, but by aiiowing the appticatjon, the revenue authorities have committed iSi©galty. 6. On the other hand, Searnsd counsei for respondents No.1 opposss the petition and submits that this writ petltion is hopelessiy barred by HmitaSion and has fiSed after four years of the order jmpugned without any justification. The pefitioners have not prayed for issuance ofwrit. Learned counsei furthor submits that as por Section 170-8 of the Code, oniy information relating to transaction is necessary and it was not necossary for Chain Singh to fije any application beforo the competent authority and appiication fiied on behaif of sons of Chain Singh was mairrtainabie untier the iaw. At the time of deciding the writ, it wouid not be proper to consider the evidence and welt founded orders of aii revenue Courts. 7. As per aforesaid orders, during Ssfe-time of Chain Singh his sons have filed appiication for return of ths land not to their father biA to them, whSch has been objected by originaS purchaser Punu Ram since ite inception, but the revenue authorities have not considered the aforesaid objection, even in second round of iitigatlon. 8. Definitely, as per provisions of Seclion 170-B of the Code, seiier or party to document or owner (rf the iand was not under obligation to fii@ any appiicatson for restoration of possossion of the land, but at the time of inquiry the competent authority i.e. Sub DMsionai Officer or superior authorities are under obiigation to inquire into th®matter and provided suffident opportunity of hearing to the pereon i.e. party of aiisged transaction, but reason best known to the revenue authorities, ©v©nafter objection made by the aiieged purchaser they have not provided opportunity of hearing or making his case to Chain Singh, inter alia, he was examined as a witness. in his evidence, {nitialiy he has admitted that \ thers was saio transaction and after obtaining permission from the -^ -5~- CoiSector he has sold the land. Thereafter he has depossd that it was mortgaged transaction. H©has specifically and catQgoricaiiy deposed that on the date of ©xecutionand preparation of such saSe deed/document, h@ has not come to the Registrar Office, it was not read over to him arsd hs has not received any money, evsn he was not present on the date of correction. He has deposed that at the time of obtainlng permission for sale, he appeared before the competent authority but no inquiry was made and by appiying pressure the CoiSector has compeiS@d him for saie. 9. Copy of the sate deed filed on behaif of the petitioners reveals that stamps for oxecution of sale dood wore purchased on 17JOJ975, it vvas prepared on 17.10.1975 and was executed on 17.10.1975 boars the signature of Chain Singh and thumb impression of Chain Singh in the document. 10.1n these drcumstances, espedaily on the basis of evidence of Chain Singh who has denied the execution, his presence at the time of such preparation, alleged signature, preparation of doeument and purchase of stamps, it was not oniy nocessary but incumbont upon the authorities to inquiro the matter in tho light of aforesald evidonco of Chain Singh, but instead of makmg such inquiry, competent authorities have rolied upon one part of his evidence. The revenue authoritios have not considered the aforesaid evidence in the iight of aforesaid document. 11.Restoration of possession/return of the land to th© mQmber of an aboriginal tribe which has b©en aiieged purchased on the basis of registered saie cieed after due permission from competent authority is not mere formaiity and competent authority and superior authoritlos ar@ under obiigation to inquire into the matter into depth to ascertaSn the truth. Evidence of Chain Singh was very ciear anci in the iight of ©videncQof Chain Ssngh, competent authority was under obiigation to ascertain whether Chain Singh has executed any such docum@nt or not, but competent authority and superior aufhorities have not examined the aforesaid questions. 12.Definiteiy, thiswrit petition has filed after four years ofthe order impugned and has not explained such deiay. They have ateo not ciaimed for issuance of writ, but this is the petition under Articio 227 of th© Constitution of india. ^ ~ c IS.Considerins the aforesaid patent iliegaiity in the orders passecl by the competent authority and superior authorities, tho writ petition fiied after four years of th©order impugned deserves to be allowed and (t !s hereby aSiowed. Order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue, order dat@d 20.4.99 passed by the AdditionaS Coiiector, Gariyaband and orderciated 24.2.95 passed bythe Sub Dwisional Officer, Gariyaband ar@ hereby set aside. Case is romittod to the Sub Divisionai Offacer, Gariyaband- The Sub DivlsionaS Officer, Gariyaband shail make an inquiry on tho basis of aforesaid observation and after providing complete opportunity to the parties pass the order afrssh. Parties are dsrected to remain present before the Sub Divisional OfRcer, Gariyaband on 18.10.2911. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge (^