Allowed

Bhushan Lal Tiwari v. Sub-Divisional Officer and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Aug 2012WP/1692/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order dismissing an appeal regarding agricultural land protection. The Court held that the Collector erred in rejecting the petition as non-maintainable, as the law required filing by 1984, not 1977, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 12.12.1991 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Collector to decide the appeal on its own merits.

Bhushan Lal Tiwari Vs Sub-Divisional Officer and Ors. — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

',:^^s^

¶2

|C^

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION N0. 1692 of 1992

¶5

PETITIONERS 1. Bhushan Lal (Prasad) Tiwari, son of

¶6

Jageshwarparasad

¶7

Girdharprasad, son of Jageshwarprasad 3. Ganesh Prasad, son of

¶8

Jageshwarprasad

¶9

Onkar Prasad, son of Ramprasad All residents of village Mohla, tahsil Mohla, distt. Rajnandgaon.

¶10

Versus

¶11

RESPONDENTS 1. Sub-Divisional Officer at Mohla

¶12

Additional Collector, Rajnandgaon.

¶13

Gopal' Prasad, son of Gourshankaer Kandelwal, Merchant, resident of Bandha Baza.ar, Tahsil Chouki, dist. Rajnandgaon.

¶14

fSB: Hon»bleMr. N.K. Agarwal, J|

¶15

PRESENT:-

¶16

Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for the petitioners.

¶17

Shri G.D.Vaswani, G.A. for the State/respondents No.l &2.

¶18

Shri P.K.C.Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Shri Rakesh Thakur, counsel for respondent No.3.

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

(Passed on 07-08-2012)

¶21

The instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calls ih question the legality and propriety of the order dated 12.12.1991 passed by the Additional Collector, Rajnandgaon in Revenue Appeal No. 81 B/22year 90-91.

¶22

nini ^^.Qi^ ^/ ^' -^ y ^.^^

¶23

l0;

¶24

Facts in brief are as under:

¶25

¶26

The petitioners executed a sale deed on 3.6.1977 with regard to 10.67 acres of land situated at village Mohla, district Rajnandgaon, in favour of respondent No.3.

¶27

(ii) According to the petitioners, the respondent No.3 is a money lender and the above sale deed has been executed by them in favour of respondent No.3 as a collateral security of loan.

¶28

(iii) The petitioners, for setting aside the sale, filed an application under Section 5 of the M.P. / C.G. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapne Sambandhi Kuchakran se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as Adhiniyam of 1976) before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 17.03.1981.

¶29

(iv)

¶30

The petitioners' application was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 11th February, 1991 holding the transaction as not prohibited

¶31

transaction of loan within the meaning of Section 7 (1) (i) oftheAdhiniyam, 1976.

¶32

(v) The petitioners preferred firsf appeal before the Collector under Section 8 of the Adhiniyam, 1976. The Collector, without entering into merits of the matter, has dismissed the appeal as according to the Collector, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 5 Adhiniyam of 1976 after 31st January, 1977 was not maintainable. Hence, this appeal.

¶33

;,^5^: t(J.l^ I ^:iW^& j ^^•^ ^ y ^

¶34

I have heard Shri H.B.Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal for the petitioners and Shri P.K.C.Tiwari, leamed Senior Advocate with Shri Rakesh Thakur for respondent No.3 and perused the paper book.

¶35

Under Section 5 of the Adhiniyam of 1976, the application for protection and seeking relief under this Act by a holder of agricultural land who is a party to any transaction of loan subsisting on the appointed day or entered into thereafter may apply to the Sub-Divisional Officer within such time, and in such form and manner as may be prescribed for protection and relief under this Act.

¶36

As per Rule 3 of the M.P. / C.G. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapne Sambandhi Kuchakran se Paritran Tatha Mukti Niyam, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1978), the application under Section 5 of the Adhiniyam of 1976 shall be made in Form-I to the Sub-Divisional Officer on or before the 31st January, 1984. Therefore, on the face, the Collector, without noticing the above provisions contained in Section 5 of the Adhiniyam of 1976 and Rule 3 of Rules of 1978 has held the application as not maintainable.

¶37

Shri P.K.C.Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Rakesh Thakur for respondent No.3 could not dispute the above position of law.

¶38

In view of above, the grounds for interference by this Court under Section 227 of the Constitution of India are made out, the petition is allowed, the order impugned dated 12.12.1991 is not sustainable in law and the same deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back

•^, '^ '. ^.

/^ )0?

•'^"-^

to the Collector deciding the petitioners' appeal on its own nierits in accordance with law.

¶43

The parties are directed to appear before the Collector on 10th September, 2012. ——-

¶44

Sd/N.K. Agarwal Judge

¶45

.^^'

Bhushan Lal Tiwari v. Sub-Divisional Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhushan Lal Tiwari v. Sub-Divisional Officer 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

Iswar Lal Patel Vs Rampal Patel and Ors.

Yadav Kumar and Anr. Vs Bihari

The Oriental Insurance Com.Ltd. Vs Smt.Rarhin Bai and Ors.

Murlidhar Agrawal Vs Bhartiya Red Cross Society and Others

Satyendra Singh and Ors. Vs Yashwant Singh and Ors.

Anirudh Singh Bais Vs Badri Prasad Gupta