Singie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Justice Satish K. Agnihotri WRS' 10. ~:'\ ^. /<- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge A wi Slnaie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Justice Satish K. Agnlhotri ^^TiTif^N sf*.^ ^ir^ on'i^ rs^ onnT E i SWI'S 1^1 f^W. £^10WF" £,\S\SS Petitioners 1. Makhanial, S/o Rajhans, Aged about 47 years. 2. Aiuram, S/o Jagdish. A.qed about S/o Prem, Agee about 42 years. 4. Chainla! Mahar, S/o Mandiya, Aged about 41 years. All residents of viiiase Nandiya, Tehsi! Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG). Versus 1. Shri Mangai Das Dharrnadhikari, Sadguru Kabir Saheb Samiti, Nandiya, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rnjnandgaon (CG). 2. The Coiiector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG). 3. Tahsildar, DOngargaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG), 'ressnt:- Shri Anup Mazumdar, counse! for the petitioners. Shri Utkarsh Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondents No.2 and 3. f<, (Deiivered on _2__April, 2007] By +his petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of indla, the petitioners chalienge the !ega!ity and vaBdity of the order dated 20-6-2005 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the Tahsiidar, Dongargaon, in revenue case No.01/A-19(1)/ year 2004-05 and the order dated 5-12-2006 (Annexure-P/3) passed by the Collector, Rajnandgaon in case No.01-A/19(1) year 2005-0-S, uphoiding the order dated 20-6-2005 passed by the Tahsildar whereunder the objection of the petittoners under the provlsions of the Chhattisgarh Ceiling on Agricultural HoldingsAct, 1960 (for short "the Acf, 1960"). 2) The indisputable facts in nutsheli are that the respondent No.1 preferred an application before the Coliector, Rajnandgaon, Tor ailotment of Government land admeasurina 79.94 acres situated in viilage Nadiya, District Rajnandgaon. The matter was referred to the Tahsiidar for enquiry and report. The case was registe'ed as revenue case No. 01,/A-19{1)/ year 2004-05. The petitioners aiong with five others fiied an objection submitting that the land in dispute was declared as surplus !and under the provisions ofthe Act, 1960. The same was ailotted to Sant Kabir Sahakari Samiti Ma.-yadit, Nad'ya (for short "Samiti"! for agricuiturai purposes. The objectors were the members of the said Samiti. On account of defaults in performance, ths said Samiti was dissolved and the land re-vested in the State Government under the provisions of Section 35 of the Act, 1960. The petitioners made an appiication stating that they v/ere members of the said dissolved Samiti and as such they are entitled to aliotment under ietter dated 29-7-1997 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the Revenue Department. 3) The Tahsiidar, Dongargaon, vide order dated 20-S-2005 stated that once the power of allotment under the provisions ofthe Act, 1960 has been exercised and the same !and is re-vested In t'ne State Government on dissolution ofthe said Samitl the provisions ofth 1960 would not be aDDlicable for re-a!!otment of the said iand. wt, •he Government !and may be allotted under ths provtsions of Revenue Book Circuiar Part iV-3. Thus, the petitioners on the ground of being members of the djssoh/ed Samiti have no right to object the aliotment of !and in favour of the respondent No,1 accordingiy their objection was rejected and the matter was fixed for evidence. 4) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 20-6-2005, the petitioners preferred revision bearing No. 01-A/19{'') year 2005-06 before the Coliector, Rajnandgaon. The Coiiector, Rajnandgaon, by his order dated 5-12-2006 upholding the rsasons and the order passed by the Tehsildar, dismissed the revision ana' directed the Tahsiidar to proceed with the matter for al'otment ofthe !and. 5) Seing aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioners have filed this petition challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 20-6-2005 (Annexure-P/2), passed by the Tahsiidar. The main grounds of chalienge are that the authorifies below ought to have appiied the provisions of Section 35 of the Act, 1960 as the land was a surpius land under provjsions of the Act, 19SO. !t was furthsr contended {hat in view of the executive instructions dated 29-7-1997 (Annexure-P/1), the petitioners being members of the dissolved Samiti had preferential 6) to aliotment. have heard iearned counsel for the petitioRers, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7) it is evident that the finding of the Tahsildar confirmed by the Co!!ector to the effect that the ailotment of surplus land under the provisions of the Act, 1960 can be exercised only once and after re-vesting of the said land in the State Government, ths State 4 Government becomes the owner of the said land an<3 the same is treated as Government iand. The clear provisions for aliotment of the Government land is under Revenue Book Circular Part IV-3. The respondent No.1 has appiied for aliotment of the said land under the provisions of Revenue Book Circular Part IV-3 wherein there was no scope for objection by the petitioners on the strength of their bein^ members of the dissolved Samiti to which the surplus iand was initialiy a!!otted and the disputed surpius land was re-vested in the Government after disso!ution of the Samiti. Thus, the members including the petitioners have no right to object the ailotment of !and under the provisions ofthe Revenue Book Circular Part IV-3. 8) It js wei! nigh settled that exereise of discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is one of judicial review, 'A'hich cannot be used to upset conclusion of facts unless such conclusions are perverse. The Court has to examine the procedural irregularity for coming to a conciuslon not the conclusion itself. This Court should refrain from substituting the opinions of authorities beSow by its own opinion in absence of any perversity, illega'ity and irregularity in the impugned order passed by the authorities bejow. 9) As a result and In view of the foregoing, the petition desewes to be dismissed and is accordingiy dismissed. No order as to costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge