Allowed

Sriramji Swami Temple and Anr. v. Smt. Manju Krishnani and Others

Chhattisgarh HC8 Aug 2011WP227/486/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order by the Collector declaring a land sale transaction via mutation attempt as invalid and ordering mutation reversal. The Collector later became the Registrar of Public Trusts. Coalition judge set aside both Collector and Board of Revenue orders for passing them against deceased persons without impleading legal representatives or affording a hearing.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 7.11.2007 and 2.12.2008 passed by the Collector and Board of Revenue were set aside. Matter remanded to pass a fresh order after impleading legal representatives.

Sriramji Swami Temple and Anr. Vs Smt. Manju… — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

C^l
j^!^/ lel
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBILASPURfCHHATTISGARH}
^r^-
WRIT PETITION^ N0. UJ^fi /2Q^'<^.0°3
^
^"
PETITIONERS 1 Shriramji Swami NQgridas Temple
-^
^n' Through : Mahant Govind Sharan
^w
Das, Sarvarakar/Trustee through :
/\om Mukhtiyar Shyom Sunder Das
TSQurabh' Guru Sarvarakar ManQnt
Govind Sharan Das, aged about 34
years, R/o Sarswati Chowk PurQni
/ Basti, Ramchandra Swami Nagridas
Temple, Raipur (C.G.)
2. Mrityunjay Dubey S/o ShriN. Dubey,
'^. M, oged about 40 years R/o Neor
Shonkor Temple Sunder NQgar,
Roipur (C.G.) Occupation
Businessman.
VERSUS
^ RESPONDENTS &^ 1. Smt. Manju Krishnani Wd/o Late
5Y" ^ -A-P^-fe-CS^S ^l^^ Dayal Krishnani, R/o Bhoi Paro,
^
^ ... / Purdni Basti, Raipur (C.G.)
RQmnQrayQn S/o Domar (Dead)
,
.^^••^
K. RQmbishal S/o. Domar (Dead)
'..'
A^-®-"""".^ /
Smt. Reja Wd/o Domar (De,ad) St.
^^".^^r<;
yo.^to ^pre R/o. - Purani Basti,
^^<1^%^^ 1
^'^ ^ ^ Raipur (CG.)
^
y ^T^//<r7/;° 5. f RijhumQl S/o Jeumol Sindhi
(Dead) R/o. Bhoipara, Purani
^-
Basti/Raipur (C.G.) ___
6. Sunder Nagar Grih Nirman
Prathmik Sahkari Sanstha
y'//^
MQryadit, Raipur through : its
President - Sunil Tiwori, S/o
Chandraparaksh Sharma (Dead)
y
7. The State of Chhattisgarh
Through :. The Collector, Raipur
/ ( C.G.)
8. The Boord of Revenue BilQspur
(Circuit Court Raipur), Raipur
(Chhattisgarh)

¶2

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CQNSTITUTjQN OF INDIA.

¶3

"^^^.-

¶4

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR

¶6

Writ Petition (2271 No. 617 of2009

¶7

PETITIONERS Shriramji Swami Nagridas Tempie NON-APPLICANTS through Mahant Govind Sharan Das and another.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

RESPONDENTS

¶10

Smt. Manju Krishnani and others

¶11

Writ Petition 1227) No.48©of 2009

¶12

PETJT80NERS MON-APPLICANTS

¶13

Shriramji Swami Nagridas Temple through Mahant Govind Sharan Das and another.

¶14

VERSUS

¶15

RESPONDENTS

¶16

Smt. Manju Krishnani and others

¶17

ORDER

¶18

For Profioyrscement of Qrder ^.08.2011

¶19

Sd/N.K. Agarwal Judge

^^^^^yw^

;"-<$, ^ ?

^//

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶24

WRIT PETITION (2271 N0. 617 of 2009

¶25

PETITIONBRS : Shriramji Swami Nagridas Temple NON-APPLICANTS tlirough Maliant Govind Sharan Das and anofher. Versus RESP03SDEHTS Smt. Manju Krishnani and ofhers.

¶26

WRIT PBTITION (2271 N0. 436 of 2009

¶27

PETmONBRS : Shriramji Swami Nagridas Temple NON-APPLICAJTTS through Mahant Govind Sharan Das and another. Versus RESPOISDEHTS : Smt. Manju Krishnani and ofhers.

¶28

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITITUTION OFKNDIA

¶29

: Hom'ble Mr. N.K.Ag^yrwal, Jl

¶30

PRBSENT :-

¶31

Mr. V.G. Tamaskar and Mr. S.C.Verma, Advocates for the petitioners.

¶32

Mr. S.S. Rajput, Advocate for respondent No. 1

¶33

Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate for respondent No.6

¶34

Mr. S.R.J. Jaiswal, P.L. for the State.

¶35

ORDBR

¶36

( ^-8-201^)

¶37

Late Rijhiunal purchased a land beartng Kh.No. 1187/1 area 2.98 acres and Kh.No. 1175/1 area 0.66 acres, total area 3.64 acres situated at Raipur, vide registered sale deed dated 15.11.1967 from late Ramnarayan, Rambishal, sons of late Domar and Smt Reza, widow of late Domar. The said land was purchas€;d by fhe above late Ramnarayan, Rambishal and Smt Reza from Mahant Sriraaichandra Nagd Das

¶38

'••%.: \

¶39

Mandir vide registered sale deed dated 12.5.1958. After death ofRijhumal, one Sint. Manju Krishnani, sold the land bearing Kh.No. 1187/1 area 2.98 acres to Sundar Nagar Grih Nirman SamiU, Raipur vide regLstered sale deed 26.5.2006.

¶40

AppUcation for mutation was preferred by Sundar Nagar Grih Nirman Samiti, Raipur, before ttie Officer on Special Duty, Diversion Branch, Office of CoUector, Raipur. The above Officer vide its order dated 19.04.2007 dtrected for mutation of the above land in favour of Sundar Nagar Grih Nirman Samiti, Raipur. The above order was assailed by Mrityunjay Dubey, petitioner No.2 herein, by filing complaint before fhe Collector. The Collector, vide its order dated 7th November, 2007 set aside fhe order dated 19.04.2007 passed by fhe above Ofilcer declarmg fhe sale traasaction as invalid and directed for mutation pfabove land in favour ofTrust and also du-ected for lod^ng of F.I.R. and for taking disciplinary action against the persons concemed.

¶41

¶42

The above order passed by the Collector was assaUed separately by filing appeal by Smidar Nagar Grih Nirman Samiti, Raipur and Smt. Manju Krishnani, before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue registered Revenue Case Nos.A/14/FT/B-113(4)/365/2007 and A/14/PT/B113(4)/342/2007 and vide its order dated 2.12.2008 aUowed both the appeals setting aside the order passed by fhe CoUector on 7.11.2007.

¶43

Against above orders passed by the Board of Revenue, instant petitions being W.P.(227) No.486/2009 and W.P.(227) No.617/2009 were preferred under Article 227 of fhe Constitution of India by fhe petitioners i.e. Shriramji Swami Nagridas Temple and Mrityunjay Dubey. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both ftie

¶44

^,,

¶45

petitions, therefore, both the petitions are being disposed of by this commoti order.

¶46

Mr V.G.Tamaskar and Mr. S.C.Verma, leamed coiinsel appeanng for 'fhe petitioners, would submit: the order dated 7.11.2007 has been passed by the Collector in his capadty as Registrar, Publlc Trusts and the appeal preferred fhereagainst was not maintainable, and fherefore, fhe order passed by the Board of Reveiiue is ex facie illegal and deserves to be set aside. It was further contended that fhe property of Trust cannot be sold out without due permission of Registrar, Public Trusts and as such, fhe sale deed was invaMd, inefiective and the order of mutation passed by the Officer on Special Duty was illegal and the CoUector has rightly set asid^ the above dr'dei5 and the Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the order passed by the Collector.

¶47

On the'bfher hand, Mr. S.S.Rajput and Mr. Jitendra PaJi, leamed dounsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 6 would submit: the order passed by fhe CoUector was against deceased persons, without impleading Smt. Manju Krishnani ancl without afibrding due opportunity of hearing, and fherefore, was illegal. The Collector has no right to set aside the sale deed, which is m the domain ofthe Civil Court. s The order passed by fhe Collector was not in his capacity Registrar, Public Trusts, but was against the rautation order passed by tlie Special Ofiicer and thereagainst appeal lies before fhe Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue has not committed any iUegality in settmg aside fhe order of Collector. .1'

¶48

7, I have heard leamed counsel appeanng for the parties and perused the orders impugned.

'""%. ^.

;^F7/^

As per the order of Collector dated 7th November, 2007, the R^istrar, Public Trusts-Collector, Raipur vide its order 08.06.1963 has directed mutation of land bearing Kh.No. 1187/1 area 2.98 acres in the name of Sriramchandra Swami Math, Shri Nagridasji, Purani Basti, Raipur, in place of Raianarayan holding sale toransaction is illegal.

¶53

It is settied law, invaMdity of a sale deed and its cancellation bn the ground fhat it was voidable could only be determined and adjudicated upon by a Civil Court of competent Jurisdiction. However, tf a sale deed is void abinitio, then certainty it can be i^iored.

¶54

A bare perusal of the order passed by the CQllector would reveal: fhe same has been passed against deceased persons i.e. late Raninarayan, Rambishal and late Smt. Reza, without impleading their legal representatives and wifhout affbrding them opportunity of hearing. Further, Smt. Manju Krishnani has not been impleaded wifh her fuU name. The Board of Revenue has also committed the same mistake. The order has been passed by unpleading late Ramnarayan, late Ranibishal and late Smt. Reza and without impleading thLeir legal representatives as respondents.

¶55

Indisputably, no order can be passed against deceased persons without impleading theu- legal representatives in their place and without afibrding fhem opportunity of hearing.

¶56

'^•K, ""'^ ^.. "^.. ;i^.

¶57

ConsideEing every aspect offhe matter and the fact that both fhe authorities below have passed the orders against deceased persons, in fhe considered opmion of tihis Court^ both fhe orders dated 07.11.2007 and 02.12.2008 passed by the Collector and fhe Board of Revenue deserve to be and are hereby set aside.

¶58

¶59

Accordmgly, the petitions are allowed. The matter is remanded back to the CoUector to decide ttie case afresh after impleading Smt. Margu Kristmani wifh her full naine and after affording opportunily to implead l^al representatives of the deceased persons i.e. Rainnarayan, Rambishal and Smt Reza, to fhe applicants before him and after affording full opportunity ofhearing to the parties, in accordance witti law.

¶60

No order as to costs.

¶61

Sd/N.K.Agarwal Judge

Sriramji Swami Temple and Anr. v. Smt. Manju Krishnani and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sriramji Swami Temple and Anr. v. Smt. Manju Krishnani and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mormukut Yadav and Others Vs Anil Kumar Baghel and Others

Karan Singh and Ors. Vs Beniram and Ors.

Mohd.Shakeel Menon Vs Abhimanyu Devri and Others

Inmur Rahim Khan and Ors. Vs State of M.P.Now C.G.and Ors.

Smt.Shyama Bai Vs Collector,Mahasamund and Ors.

Kumud Chhaya Verma Vs Smt. Rama Bai and Ors.