Dismissed

Laxmi Venturesindia Ltd. v. Hiroo Pachkod and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jul 2012WA/947/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench held that a non-party to revenue revision proceedings cannot challenge the order directly under Article 226. The court clarified that revenue courts do not decide title disputes and such orders do not operate as res judicata against strangers. The appeal against the writ Court's dismissal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal filed by the non-party appellant was dismissed with liberty to file a civil suit for declaration of title.

Laxmi Venturesindia Ltd. Vs Hiroo Pachkod and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

vy'S . .£..s* -4 ^^f'^^t^ ''^-Srffii' ••:•-; ^^'^"if^^'-""••• '• ^•"•.ts.y

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUOICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT APPEAL N0. 3 M ^- / 2OTT-1

APPELLANT

(Petitioner)

A^i%t//
^.<s//
^'

^: Laxmi Ventures (India) Ltd., a company duly incorporated under the relevant provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having itsregistered & head office at 36/40 Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade, Mahalaxmi Mumbai (MS), through its Authorized Signatory Shr-i Nimish Sunil Agarwal, son of Shri Sunil Agarwal, resident of 1/45 Motilai Nehru Nagar (East),

¶10

Bhilai, Oistrict Durg (C6)

RESPONbENT

/^^<br>

/l. Hiroo Pachkod, son of Late Rajaram Pachkod, aged a.bout 68 years, resident of Tikrapara, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (C6) lA.Rajendra, son of Late Rajaram, aged about 45

¶15

years.

¶16

AQ. Smt. Sushila, widow of Late

¶17

l-1iralal, aged about 80 years. lC.Smt. Triveni, wife of Shri Shambu, aged' about 46

|3p!^n

years.

.ID.Smt. 6anga, wife of Late Bharat, aged about 50 year'3.

¶23

/ lE.Smt. Jamuna, wife of Shri Sukhu, aged about 52 years. All through respondent No.l (respondents No.lA to 1E were not parties before the Board but since their names have been recorded along with respondent No.l in the land records in complionce of the order of the Board of Revenue, therefore, they have been made parties to the present proceeding as a matter of abundant caution) Respondents No.lA to 1E are residents of Tikrapara, Raipur (C6)

¶24

^ 2. AA.P. Aluminum Industries, Through Shri Santosh, (Sovind, Prembai, son of Shri Kriparam Sahu, resident of Baijnathpara, Raipur, Tehsil <& District Raipur (C6)

¶25

--3.

¶26

Lateluram, son of Shri Sarha Sonkar, aged about 80 years, resident of Lakhe

¶27

¶28

-3

¶29

Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur (CG)

¶30

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Additional Collector, Raipur. ^' 5. The Additional Tehsildar, Raipur.

¶31

(Respondents No.4 <& 5 being the State authorities have been made parties to the petition as the proper parties)

¶32

WRIT APPEAL UN&ER SECTION 2 (1) OF THE

¶33

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO OIVISION

¶34

BENCH) ACT. 2006

¶35

D»; ) ^ ^ 4 -I ^ ^-L4^*—£.

¶36

^^yi^^.^^m

¶37

<br>

¶38

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶39

DB: HON'BL®MR^ABHAY BIANOHAR SAPRS & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ.

¶40

Writ Auneal No. 531 of 2011

¶41

Appeltont Nemichand Jain Petitioner

¶42

Versus

¶43

Respondents Hiroo Pachkod and others

¶44

AND

¶45

Writ Appeal (PR) No. 8374 of 2011

¶46

Appellant Laxmi Ventures (India) Ltd., Petitioner

¶47

Versus

¶48

Respondents Hiroo Pachkod and ofhers

¶49

Present:

¶50

Shri Kshidj Sharma, counsel for the appellants in both the appeals.

¶51

Shri MPS Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. Shri AN Bhakta, counsel for respondents 1, 1B, 1C, 1D 8s 1E in both the appeals.

¶52

WritAooeal under Sectioa 2 (11 ofthe Chhattisearh High Court lAoueal to Division Benchl Act, 2006.

¶53

O R D ER

¶54

(Passed on 6fh July, 2012)

¶55

The following order of the Court was passed by Abhav Manohar Sapre. J.

¶56

Heard.

¶57

The decision rendered in this writ agpeal shall also govem disposal of another connected appeal being W.A.(PR) No 8374/11, because,both these appeals involve identical issue. .

¶58

Facts of the case are short. They however, need mention in brief.

¶59

The appellant is the writ petitioner. He filed a writ petition challenging one brder dated 23.4.2010 passed by the Board of Revexiue in one Revenue Revision No. R.N./14/R/B-121/90/2010 ffled by respondent No.l against respondents 2 and 3, in relation to the land bearing No. P.H.N.114 Khasra No. 213/1 area 0.845 situated in Tikrapara (Raipur). This writ petition was dismissed and hence, the writ appeal against the order of the writ Court filed by the writ petitioner.

¶60

IN—NNT

¶61

It is not in dispute that ,the appellant (writ petitioner) was not par1y to the proceedings (revision) before the Board of Revenue in the revision and as stated supra, the said order was passed in a case (revision) between respondents interse i.e. respondent No.l on the one side as revision petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 on the other side as non - applicants of the said revision. It was as mentioned above in relation to aforementioned land.

¶62

In a case of this nature, the appellant had no right to challenge the order passed by the Board of Revenue and that too directly in the writ petition and only persons who could challenge such order were the one who were parties to the said revision, i.e. either respondent No.l or respondents 2 or 3, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court. It is for the reason that those parties who are litigating and invited the finding from. any Court/Authority/Tribunal in relation to any dispute have a right to continue the LIS in higher forum to get rid of the finding recorded against them, but not a stranger tp such proceedings, whp was neither a party to the original Hs and nor at the appellate stage and nor at a revisional stage in such iis. Such person can not in normal circumstances invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Cqurt for challenging such order. It is all the more when parties to the original lis did not pursue the issue to higher forum interse.

¶63

•X

¶64

In a case of this nature, where the appellant (writ petitioner) cqmplains that his individual property rights are adversely affected due tp passing of an order by the

¶65

Courts/Authorities/Tribunal to which he was not party to such proceedings, in which such order came to be passed then such orders woiild not bind him and nor such orders can be used against him by the persons, who were party td such proceedings.

¶66

It is a settled principle of law that no order can be passed against any person unless he is afforded an opportunity of being heard and no order can be used by any person for his benefit against any such person and nor would it operates as resjudicata having any binding force against a person who was not party to such order.

¶67

In the light of this well settled principle of law while dismissing this appeal, all that we consider it proper to observe is that ifthe appellant (writ petidoner) feels that due to passing of the orders passed by the Board of Reyenue in relation to some land and to which he was not party his property rights attached to some land are adversely affected or there is any cloud on such rights then he is always at liberty to file a civil suit against the respondents or against any one who is trying to disturb his lawful title and in such suit he can always seek a declaration ofhis title to such land by proving the sanie in accordance with law, against such persons.

¶68

<.-,

¶69

Need less to say, the revenue Courts never decide the issues relating to fhe titie of the parties to any immovable property and all orders of revenue Courts in relation to any land are subject to the decision rendered by the civil Court, ui relation to such land.

¶70

It is with these observations, and the liberty, we find no inerit in this appeal which fails and is dismissed.

¶71

No cost.

¶72

A copy of this order be placed in the recbrd of W.A. (PR) No.8374/2011.

Sd/-

Abhay Manohar Sapre

Judge

Sd/-

G. Minhajuddin Judge

Bini

Laxmi Venturesindia Ltd. v. Hiroo Pachkod and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Venturesindia Ltd. v. Hiroo Pachkod and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commi. Custams and Cen. Excise Raipur Vs M/S Vindhya Telelin.Ltd.Udyog Vihar

Union of India Vs M/S. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd.

Icici Lombard Gene. Insu. Co. Ltd. Vs Chandrashekhar and Ors.

The Chief Executive Officer and Ors. Vs Reliance General Inurance Co.Ltd.andORS

Nemichan Jain Vs Hiroo Pachkod and Ors.

The Chief Executive Officer and Ors. Vs Reliance General Insu.Co.Ltd. and Ors.