Dismissed

Bhawaneshwar v. Meghan and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC2 Aug 2011WP/5052/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the revenue authorities' order restoring land to original aboriginal owners without issuing a show-cause notice. The court held that the summary inquiry satisfied Section 170-B and confirmed no illegality occurred since the petitioner was not the person in possession at the time of the order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Bhawaneshwar Vs Meghan and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

.^ •

PetitiGner		Bhuneshwar (Now dead), Through : Legal Representative Paddu Ram, S/o. Turiya, aged about 28 years, Cssts-Urson, R/c. VJilage-Turidih, P.S. Bairampur, Teh-Pal,. Djstrict- Sarguja (M.P.) (Now C.G.)
		Versus
Res@Qndents	1.	Meghana, S/o NakRu, Ceste-Bhuihar
	2.A.	Klsmatlya, Wd/'o.late Lorsa Ramjatan, aged about 50years,
	28.	Budhnarayan, S/o. Late Lorss Ramjatan, aged about 28 ysars'
		All r/o. Viilge Tangarmarhi, Teh Pal, Dlstrict Sarguja (C.G.)
	3.	Sotl, S/o. Dhani Sonl, R/'o. Vlltage Baiarampur, Tahsi} Pal, Dlstrid Surguja, M.P. (Now C.G.)
	4.	The Sub-Dlvisionai Officer (Revenue), Ramanujganj, Dlstrict Sarguja, M.P. (now C.G.)
	5.	CoSSector, Sarguja, Ambikapur.
	6.	Commissloner Biiaspur Divlsion, Bllaspur, M.P. (NowC.G.)
	7.	The Board of Revenue, Gwaiior, Through its Reglstrar, At & PO- Gwallor, M.P.
	8.	State of M.P., Through: Secretary Revenue Depsrtment; Bhopai, M.P.

¶5

PetitiGner

¶6

CWrit Petltion underArtlcie 226/227 ofthe Constitution of Indla)

¶7

Vr.A.K.Prasad, counsej forthe petitioner.

¶8

None present for respondents No.1 , 2A, 2B and 3 and 8.

¶9

Mr.SushlJ Dubey, Govt.Advocate wlth Mr.Sanjesv Kumar Agrawai, Panei Lavv'yer for respondents No.4 to S/'State.

,.^:;:"'^''';%^

|'te:^l'-^s^

-^-

(SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.)

ORDERCORAU

(2-8-2011)

By this petltion under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petltioner has chalienged the Isgaiity and propriety of the order datsd 29.3.96 (Annexure A/5) passed by tne Board of Revenue in Case No.F?.N./'3-3/R/831/95, affirmlng the order dated 23.8.1995 (Annexure A/4) by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Dlvision, In Revision Case SM0.4/A23/1994-95, order 22.8.1994 (Annexure A/3) passed by the Coilector, Ssrguja in Revenue Case No.58/'A-23/93-94 and order dated 28.4.94 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Sub-DivlslonaS Offlcer, Ramanujganj In Case No.SA-23/93-94, whereby the Sub Dlvisional Offlcer has dlrec-ted for return of.possesslon to Puran against Sotl, who was not a member of Schedufed Tribe and was.not in possession ofsuch property.

¶18

S have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused' the order impugned and other documents flied on behalf o? the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petltloner submsts that origlnai owner of the land Puran was a member of Scheduied.Tribe, he has: sold the land In the names of fVleghan and Lorsa and the present petstioner has purchased the iand frorn fvleghan. Learned counsel furtner subrnits that prese?it petitloner was sn possession ofthe property and stIH he is In possesslon, &/ but Vv'ithout providing an opportunity of hearing or surrimoning the Sub-Dlvlsional Officer, Ramanujganj passed the order of return of the Eand to Puran. Same wss chaEienged before the Coliector, the ComrRlssloRer and the Board of Rsvenue and the aforesald authorities have affirmed the order by the Sub-Dlvisionai Offlcer on the ground that the property W3S purcnased by Sotl In the names of IVSeghan and Lorsa, on the ground that Sotl was not In a posltlon to purchase the land on the ground of hss caste. Learned counsel contended that the present pstitioner is owner and possessor of the property and without providing an opportunsty of hearing to him, ordsrs passed by the revenue authorities are not sustainabie under the Eaw.

¶19

Learned counsei piaced relisnce In the matter of v. of M.P» and others reported In (4) M.P.H.T.-ze 1n whlch tnis

¶20

<-Court has nejd that even in a case covered by sub-section (2) of Section

•"'•^;

-<3>

170-B, l.e., where the person In possesslon of the land of an aboriginai, failed to notify to the SDO information as to how he came sn possession on the land, jt Is not open to the SDO reiying on deeming dause enaeted in sub-section (2) to strasghhvay dlrect restoration of the land to the aboriglnal. Even in such a case the SDO must Issue show-cause notjce to the person in possession and maks the enqulry envisaged under subsection (3) of Section 170-B before ordering restoration and order for restoratlon of iand by the SDO wjthout making sny Snquiry is not sustajnable.

¶25

O.n the other hand, Searned coupssei for the State opposes the pstitton and submits that the present petitjoner was not in possession of the Sand and one Soti was jn possession of the land purchased in the names of members of Scheduied Tribe i.e. IVIeghan and Lorsa. After due inquiry, the revenise authorities have passed the order of return ofthe land. Tne revenue aisthoritlss have not commltted any jSlegallty.

¶26

As per order passed by the SDO, the present petltloner was not party before It. After passjng such order, the present petJtioner has c'najjenged the order before the CoSlector, Sarguja and Coilector, Sarguja after hearing ths partles passed the order.

¶27

¶28

After perusal of the documents flsed by the petitioner, the Coliector, Sarguja has arrived at a flnding that origiRally sa!e deed Vv'as preparsd in the name of Soti and thereaftsr aftsr strucR hls name, nsme of the present petitjoner has been added in whlch Soti Prasad has been shown ss wltness. As per report of patwarl, Sotl was not in possesslon of the Sand or the present petltioner or other persons. The Coliector has dismjssed the appeai of the petitioner, Same has been afnrmed by the Commlssloner and the Board of Revenue.

¶29

As heid by this Court in the matter of Stwarl Rarra (sypra), SDO Is required to issue show-cause notlce in accordance with Section 170-B of the Chhattlsgarh Land Revenue Code to the person who !s in possesslon of the land before passing any order of return of the land to origlnai land belonging to an abonginat tribe.

¶30

As per order passed by the revenue authorities, Soti Vv'as §n possession of the property and not Meghan or Lorsa or any person. Before the Coiiector the prssent petitloner has made submissfon supported by the document

¶31

•^

¶32

¶33

which aiso corroborates the fact that Sott was the Interested person for purchass of such land, otherwlse there vvas no proprlety for preparatson of saie deed In the nameof Soti or msking any attssting wltness, even who is not resident of vlliage Badki Mohri, Tahsli Ramanujggnj where the present petltioner is residing, snter 'aiia, he is ressdent of Batrampur, TanssS Pal.

¶34

This summe"y inquj"y of the revenus authoritiss satisfies the requlrsment of Sectlon 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.

¶35

<<:.-.

¶36

l'1. While passing such orders and not issuing Rotice to the present petitioner, the revenue authoritles have not committed any IISegaiity warrantlng interference In exercise ofsupervlsoryjurisdictlon.

¶37

Consequently, the writ petition is iiabie to be dismlssed and §t js hereby

¶38

dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sd/T.P. Sharma Judge

Bhawaneshwar v. Meghan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhawaneshwar v. Meghan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Onkar Prasad Chandra Vs State of M.P. and Ors.

Satiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raju Gaure Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sheo Kumar Agrawal Vs the State of M.P. and Ors.

Arvind William Vs State

Sobhit Ram and Another Vs Umashankar and Others