^- , j0 ^ IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fC.) N'3'^ OF 2011 PETITIONER ^M&ioney Non-Apf'X('Cfl4^M<>S' ^\vx.Y\ RESPONDENTS ^w^ '.»" ..• ^$€S:"S ..•^"y""^\^ »•••.w<-'' ...'^ 1 4. v^/°5? sy,^/ K.es-^.o-6+v 11 qy^ ^t^-AS>PJ>c^t-^^^ ^-^ -,-6. 7. " 8. .- 9. 10. 11. ?-3\«\l\ Sait Ram Son of la'^ Johrit, caste ( Gond, aged about 57 years, at present R/o. P.W.D. Colony Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (C.G.), VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.), ^ Noh-ft?PJuitAt^l«-3 The Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Circuit Court Jagdalpur (C.G.), The Commissioner, Bastar Division Jagdalpur, (C.G.) The Additional Collector, District Bastar, Narayanpur (C.G.), The Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Keshkal, District Bastar (C.G.), Satwan Bai wife of Suija Kalar, Paraga Bai wife of Rupdhar Kalar Sushila Bai @ Lila Bai, wife of Chair Ram, Koushilya Bai wife of Kalyan Agreshiya wife of Rupdhar, Ganeshiya son of Rupdhar, Respondent No.6 to 11 are R/o. Village Korgaon, Tahsil Baderajpur, District Bastar (C.G.), A PPJ^C^f^ .^- ^)"'" ^e^'^s cz -^13 d^^ -—12.KailashsonofHalal, R/o.Village /V oy)-^pf/i'Cflt^-^tf>ia»JI-^ Adega, Tahsil Keshkar, Dista-ict Bastar (C.G.), -13. Mehtarin Bai D/o. Juga Gond (Now died), through : her legal heris 13(a) Megu S/o.Dayaram, aged about 35 years, R/o. Amoda, Tahsil Farasgaon, District Bastar (C.G.), 13(b) Berobai, aged about 40 years, wife of Gushar, R/o. Badedogar, Tahsil Farasgaon, District Bastar (C.G.), 13(c) Jugobai aged about 30 years, wife ofFulutram, R/o. Aodka, Tahsil Bigrampuri, District Bastar (C.G.), / 13(d) Jagnibai aged about 25 years, wife of Jamlal R/o. Medarbandi, Tahsil Farasgaon, District Bastar (C.G.), WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (SB: Hon'bte Mr. T.P.SHARMA, J.) Writ Petition (C) No.6362 of 2011 Satvan Bai and others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and others And Writ Petition (C) No.7111 of 2011 Sait Ram Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and others POST FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER ON 14/12/2011 L T.P. Sharma Judge Respondents HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (0 No.6362 of 2011 Petitioners 1. Satvan Bai, aged about 58 years W/o Surja Kalar, 2. Paraga Bai, W/o late Rupdhar Kalar, 3. Sushila Bai W/o Chaitram 4. Kaushilya Bai W/o Kalyan 5. Ageshiya W/o Rupdhar 6. Ganeshiya D/o Rupdhar All R/o Village Korgaon, Tahsil Baderajpur Distt.Bastar Versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur 2. The Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur 3. The Additional Collector, Distt.Bastar Narayanpur 4. Kailash S/o Halal, R/o Village Adega, Tahsil Keshkal, Distt.Bastar 5. Mehtrin D/o Junga Gond, R/o Village Korgaon, Tahsil Baderajpur, Distt.Bastar (Died) through her legal heirs 5a. Megu S/o Dayaram aged about 35 years, R/o Amoda, Tahsil Farsgaon Distt.Bastar 5b. Berobai, aged about 40years, W/o Gushar, R/o Badedogar, Tahsil Farsgaon Distt.Bastar 5c. Jugobai aged about 30 years, W/o Fulutram R/o Aodka, Tahsil Bigrampuri, Distt.Bastar. 5d. Jagnibai aged about 25 years, W/o Jamlal, R/o Medarbandi, ; Tahsil Farsgaon, Distt.Bastar 6. Setram S/o Johrit, Village Kriha, Tahsil Charama, Distt.Kanker k' f^. 7. Sub Divisional Officer (R), Keshkal Distt.Bastar 8. Tahsildar Bishrampuri, Keshkal, Distt.Bastar (Writ Petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) ^\c ; Present: Mr.Parag Kotecha, counsel forthe petitioners. Mr.Vinod Kumar Tekam, Panel lawyer for respondents No.1, 2, 3, 7 and 8/State. Mr.P.P.Sahu, counsel for respondents No.4 and 5a to 5d. Mr.Bharat Rajput, counsel for respondent No.6. And Petitioner Respondents w Writ Petition (0 No.7111 of 2011 Sait Ram Son of late Johrit, caste Gond, aged about 57 years, at present R/o. P.W.D. Colony Bhanupratappur, District Kanker Versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, at D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Circuit Court, Jagdalpur (C.G.) 3. The Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur (C.G.) 4. The Additional Collector, District Bastar, Narayanpur (C.G.) 5. Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Keshkal, District Bastar (C.G.) 6. Satwan Bai wife of Surja Kalar, 7. Paraga Bai wife of Rupdhar Kalar 8. Sushila Bai @ Lila Bai, wife of Chair Ram, \^\ 9. Koushilya Bai wife of Kalyan 10. Agreshiya wife of Rupdhar, 11. Ganeshiya son of Rupdhar, Respondent No.6 to 11 are R/o. Village Korgaon, Tahsil Baderajpur, District Bastar (C.G.), 12. Kailash son of Halal, R/o. Village Adega, Tahsil Keshkar, District Bastar (C.G.), 13. Mehtarin Bai D/o. Juga Gond (Now died), through: her legal heirs 13(a) Megu S/o. Dayaram aged about 35 years, R/o Amoda, Tahsit Farsgaon Distt.Bastar 13(b) Berobai, aged about 40 years, Wife of Gushar, R/o. Badedogar, Tahsil Farsgaon Distt.Bastar (C.G.) 13(c) Jugobai aged about 30 years, Wife of Fulutram R/o. Aodka, Tahsil Bigrampuri, Distt.Bastar (C.G.) 13(d) Jagnibai aged about 25 years, Wife of Jamlal, R/o. Medarbandi, Tahsil Farsgaon, DisttBastar (C.G.) (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Present:- Mr.Bharat Rajput, counsel forthe petitioner. Mr.Vinod Kumar Tekam, Panel lawyer for respondents No.1, 3, 4 and 5/State. None present fpr respondent No.2. Mr.Parag Kotecha, counsel for respondents No.6 to 11. Mr.P.P.Sahu, counsel for respondents No.12 and 13(a) to 13(d). llli,,, ,f ^ 'i.. .\\2- '^\ i'y1 k ;s2Sy 3. 4. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) ORDER (Passedon 14-12-2011) Since the aforesaid two writ petitions bearing Writ Petition (C) No.6362/2011 and Writ Petition (C) No.7111/2011 are arising out of the order dated 28.5.2011 passed by the Board of Revenue, Circuit Couri:, Jagdalpur, they are being disposed of by this common order. By filing Writ Petition (C) No.6362/2011 the petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 25.8.2011 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Board of Revenue, Circuit Court, Jagdalpur, in Revision Case No.RN/01/R-A-23/165/2010, dismissing the revision on the ground of maintainability, order dated 16.3.2010 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, in Revision Case No.02/A- 23/07-08, affirming the order dated 10.3.2006 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Additional Collector, Distt.Bastar, Narayanpur in Revenue Case N0.03/A-23/2003-04 and order dated 7.7.98 & 31.1.2000 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (R.), Keshkal, whereby the Sub Divisional Officer has directed for return of possession of the land to Battibai and Mehtrinbai. By filing Writ Petition (C) No.7111/2011, the petitioner (respondent No.6 ofWrit Petition (C) No.6362/2011 namely Setram) has also challenged the orders passed by the revenue Courts and has virtually supported the case of the petitioners of Writ Petition (C) No.6362/2011 . Brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ petitions are that originally the land was owned by Junga Gond, who was a member of aboriginal tribe who executed sale deed in favour of Johrit in the year 1970. Thereafter as per revenue record Johrit has left the holding and also left the village in the year 1976. Land was settled as Bhumiswami tand in favour of the petitioners of Writ Petition (C) No.6362/2011 . Proceeding under Section 170-B ofthe Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code') was initiated at the instance of Battibai and Mehtrinbai, i.e. heirs of Junga Gond and finally the revenue Courts had arrived at a finding that transaction was fraudulent transaction and the petitioners were interested in purchasing the land from Junga Gond, they also tried for permission from the Collector, but they could not succeed, thereafter they succeeded in getting sale deed in favour of Johrit in connivance with Johrit, but Johrit was never cultivated the land, he was not Bhumiswami of the land. The petitioners of Writ Petition (C) No.6362/2011 again succeeded in settling the land in their favour. Considering the fact that it was fraudulent transaction the revenue authorities have directed for return of possession to Battibai and Mehtrinbai i.e. legal heirs of Junga Gond. Same was adjudicated before the civil Court and First Civil Judge Class-1, Jagdalpur has decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.2005 in Civil Suit No.6A/2000 in favour of the petitioners of Writ Petition (C) No.6363/201 1, which was challenged by original respondent No.5 and Battibai, daughters of Junga Gond before the Third Additional District Judge, Jagdalpur in Civil Appeal No.S-A/2006 and vide judgment and decree dated 5.12.2006 the Third Additional District Judge has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the First Civil Judge Class-1, Jagdalpur who has decreed the suit in favour of the petitioners that the petitioners could not be evicted without following the procedure prescribed under the law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned and orders of the revenue authorities. 6. Mr.Parag Kotecha, counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No.6362/2011 and Mr.Bharat Rajput, counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No.7111/2011 argued thatthe petitioners ofWrit Petition (C) No.6362/2011 are in possession of the suit property as Bhumiswami, they have not purchased the land from Junga Gond or any member of aboriginal tribe, but they are Bhumiswami in accordance with the provisions of the Code, therefore, their act cannot be termed as fraudulent transaction. Mr.Parag Kotecha further argued that by the decree of the . Civil Court possession of the petitioners has been protected, but still the respondents have right to evict them by following the procedure prescribed under the law. 7. Mr.Parag Kotecha, counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No.6362/2011 placed reliance in the matter of Baldeo Singh v. Sukka and others (1998 RN 418) in which the High Couri: of Madhya Pradesh •Ai!|e69||! peuiLULUoo AqejeLjt pue JSUELU eqi pejinbui )ou SAeq seiiuoyine snusAej eqt pue sjeuoifitad aq^ o} USAIB ueeq iou seq A)iunpoddo eia|dLuoo piesejo^v 'Ol •s9iiuo4inv QWQ eq) ;o aseo SL)) CuiieeLU pue s9A|9SLU3qi 6uipu9j9p ^o Aiiunijoddo JIBJ USA16 eq p|noqs Aey) pue LUSL)} tsuieBe ino epeuj spunoj6 sq} OJB ieqM A|esp9jd pue A|JB9|3 p|0} eq p|noqs Aeqt leqi ME| jo lusuiejinbsj 8i|i si ti 'spunojB eiqissiiujed ^ue uo pue| jiaLii ^o peissAip aq 0} eiqeii eje psap pejeisiBsj 941 jepun uonejspisuoo jo^ pue| (oefqns eqi paseqojnd SAeq oqM sjauoiiiisd eqi 11 'eipui jo uoiin}!}suo3 eqi j& ^i. eioipy ujo-il BUIMOU p89jo |euoitn}!)suoo e siua^e} Sl UOI)OB 9SJ9ApE UB BJO^Sq p9siejdde eq p|noqs p8p9ye 'A[8}!uy9Q •6 •paquosejd sjnpaoojd 94} CUIMOIIO^ (noqtim pue Cuueaq ^o Aiiunyoddo BuipiAojd ^noqiiM paqsmqe eq touueo iqBiy •iq6u ^ioinieis japun Afjedojd eqi BU!P|OL| eje l |.OZ/Z9£9'ON (3) uoit!i9d t!JM jo sjeuoi^ed sqi '|E>|4S9>f 'jepiisqei-qiBN •o-! jsoiyo anuaAaj sieuipjoqns sii Aq QO) leqi 'sjsuoi^ed 34) 0} u9Ai6 uaeq seq }q6u luiBMSiLunqg qoiijM ui eouetSLunojp 9L|( 6uipn|ou! q)dsp ui jeuELU aqt pejinbui (ou seq |e>|qse>f '(•y) Jaoiyo IBUOISIAIQ qng 841 Jepjo 04) Cuissed SII.LIM 'ssiueu Jiaq^ ui peiuss uaeq SB4 pue| 94} inq 'Apedojd aqi psseqojnd }ou eAeq sjeuoi^ied ^uessjd synoo enu9A9j eqi ^o sjepjo jed se 'Aipeuiiupv '1.10Z/Z9£9'ON (0) uoii!t3d IUAA i° sjauoiinad aq} p jnoAE^ ui peiues SBM pue-| •96e|]iA 941 U8| seq luqor 'jaueejeqi pue \wof ^o jnoAej ui peinoaxs SBM peep 3|es •squ} leuiBuoqe jo jequjeLU e SBM OL|M A)J9dojd 3L|t jo jeuMO |eu!6uo sem puoQ eBunp 'synoo enusAaj ai)} jo Buipuy jad se 'sseo luesajd 341 u| •g •Aijadojd siq LUOJJ uuiq Bui^saft 9jojsq ssiped eqi o) Ouueaq p A}iunpoddo apiAojd 01 pejinbaj eje seiiuoqine aqi ^eqi p|sq seq (jnoQ sii)} qoii|M ui '(sjaqfo pue ysapejj BAqpB|/\| 10 eieis 841 'A ejo6uiH JB^eqooqv'Ja) 6661 ^o Z69Z'°N'd'M ui ijnoo siq^ Aq passed gooz'9'SZ pstBp japjo sqi ^0 eoueiiej psoe|d jsqynj lesunoo paujEei •A}uoq}ne inoyfiM eq 0} peujnsejd eq }ouueo 33J81SUEJ} ^o uoissessod 'spoo anueAey pue-| qjeesiueyqo 94} ^o g -02.1. uoipes JSpun jeje^suBJi Aq uoipe Aue p eouasqe ui IEL<I p|9L| seq \\h 11. Consequently, Writ Petition (C) No.6362/2011 filed on behalf of petitioners Satvan Bai, Paraga Bai, Sushila Bai, Kaushilya Bai, Ageshiya and Ganeshiya is liable to be allowed and is hereby allowed and Writ Petition (C) No.7111/2011 filed on behalf of petitioner Sait Ram stands disposed of. Orders dated 7.7.1998 and 31.1.2000 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (R), Keshkal, in Revenue Case No.l/A-23/97-98, order dated 10.3.2006 passed by the Additional Collector, Distt.Bastar, Narayanpur, in Revenue Case No.OS/A-23/2003-04, order dated 16.3.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, in Revision Case No.02/A-23/07-08 and order dated 25.8.2011 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision Case No.RN/01/R-A-23/165/2010 are hereby quashed. Case is remitted to the Sub Divisional Officer (R), Keshkal. The Sub Divisional Officer (R), Keshkal shall inquire the matter after providing complete opportunity of hearing to the parties, especially relating to settlement of the land in favour of the petitioners of Writ Petition (C) No.6362/2011 and its effect and decide the case afresh. Parties are directed to remain present before the Sub Divisionat Officer (R), Keshkal on 18.1.2012. No orderas to costs. T.P. Sharma Judge 7!\ ^ ...R..L»^