Allowed

Krishnachand v. Dditional Commissioner and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC11 Sept 2012WP/2962/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the legality of an order directing the return of land to a tribal seller. The court found the responding authority committed an illegality for not inquiring into alleged fraudulent transactions or providing a hearing to the petitioner before quashing the sale. The writ is allowed, impugned orders quashed, and matter remanded to the Sub-Divisional

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed, impugned orders quashed, matter remanded to Respondent No. 3 for fresh inquiry after providing opportunity of hearing.

Krishnachand Vs Dditional Commissioner and Ors. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

N THE‘HIGH COURT I	OF	JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR M.P.
	‘w‘P	. No‘ggKéi"K /2ooo“ @
PETITIONER		Krishnachand, S/o. Girdhari aged about 45 years, 3/0: Village Belar, Revenue Circle Pithora, Tehsil Mahasamund, Dist.Mahasamund (M.P.)
		V E R S'U S
RESPONDENTS		Addtional Commiseioner Raipur Diet. Raipur (M.P.)
	2.	Additional Collector, Raipur (M.P.)
		Sub—Divisional Officer, Mahasamund, Dist. Mahasamund, (M.P.)
	4.	Kejuram, s[o. Bhanwar Singh, sinbe vdead 'through legal representatives —
		a^s m. ‘. Bisahu, aged 45 years, 'Bishram, aged 43 years, .\Bishru, aged 38 years, Bisheshwar, aged 38 years, Vishnu, aged 30 years, Thakur, aged 28 years, O‘QOmmIh-I i
		‘All sons of late Kejuram, R/o. Village Belar, Tehsil Mahasamund, Dist. Mahasamund (M.P.)
PETITION UNDER	ART	ICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CON	STI	TUTIONOF INDIA

¶2

Fags 1 ofz

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI3GAF€H BILAPUR ’ sin Le Berwh'nu”. ;^“n’bie n;n ML T‘P. Sher“: J}

¶4

WP. No.2962/2G(§0 FETETEGNE§ Krishnachami

¶5

¶6

RESPONDENTS Addifional Commissionen Rmpur. 'Raipur‘ {Kidii‘ionai Coiiec‘for,

¶7

sub Divisicna! Officer, Mahasamund

¶8

#9“))? Kejumm Bisuhu Bish ram Bish ru Bisheshwar

¶9

wmoFw Vis‘rmu 1‘. Thakur

¶10

Presen‘r:

¶11

Mi”. ghaskai“ Pyas’ni, Ada/bowie for fhe pefifiweia Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt Advocate for The responden’r No.1 1'0 C‘s/S'm‘re. Nana for 1"ne ofn'er respondenfs ihoug'n served.

¶12

ORDER {11.G§.2612}

¶13

By this peTHion The pefifioner‘ has chaHenged fine Iegaiity and propriew of fhe order daTed 20.4.2000 (Annexure P-B) passed by The respondenf No.1 in Revenue Case No.127/A-23/Year 99-2000 Thereby dismissing The revision peTiTion fiied cgainsT The order daTed 20.10.1994 passed by The respondenT No.1 affirming The order daTed 8.8.1991 by The passed

¶14

responden‘r No.3 direcTing reTur'n of The [and To The original selier' i.e. member of Tribe, under SecTion 170-8 of The Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for^{shorT‘TheCode,1959’).}

¶15

Learned counsel for The peTiTioner^{submiTsThaTThe} presem‘ peTiTioner has purchased The land afTer obTaining due permission from The CoiiecTor under SecTion 165 (6) of The Code, 1959. He has also replied The show cause noTice issued To him vide Annexure P-3 buT even afTer such repiy The respondenT No.3 has noT inquired The maTTer and has specificaliy menTioned in Para-4 of The order ThaT The peTiTioner has noT noTiTied The TransacTion under SecTion 1703 of The Code, 1959i Therefore; There is no need of deTaii inquiry. As per claim of The peTiTioner afTer obTaining due permission^{fromThecompe‘renTauThoriTy,ThesellerhasexecuTedThesale}

Page '2 of2

wy. Ne2952wme

deed, The pefi‘rioner himseH‘^{hasrepiiedThenoficeandaiieged} fha‘r The fransacTion be‘rween him^{andTheselier'isno‘rafmuduiem‘Tranwcfionand} therefore, an enquiry^r'el'afingTo fraudulenf^{Transacfionbu?hehasfqi§ed} To inquire inTo The maTTer and^has passed^{TheorderimpugnedandThereby} commiT'red an^iliegaiiTy.

¶20

On The oTher- hand,^{iearnedcounseiappearing} for- The STaTe^hasopposed The wriT peTiTion.

¶21

As per sTaTemenTs and^{documenTs.The} peTiTioner^has purchased^Theiand afTer' obTaining due permission^{underSecTion165} (6)^{ofTheCode,1959} from The compeTenT^auThoriTy. In reply To The show cause noTice, The peTiTioner^{hasdeniedThefacTumoffrauduienTTransacTion.} On The basis of sale deed execuTed afTer^obTainingdue permission^{fromThecompeTenT} auThoriTy: indefensible righT of The^owner in possession of^The proper-Ty has been accrued in favour of The peTiTioner and his aforesaid righT cannoT be prejudiced^wiThouT providing^{anopporTuniTy-ofmearing.} ATTer repiy To The noTice on^behalfofThe peTiTioner,^{Theresponden‘i'No.3was} under an obiigaTion To inquire inTo The maTTer To ascerTairi The TacT wheTher The TransacTion^{wasTraudulenTornoT.} Even alieged seiier has^noT deposed anyThing To show^{ThaTTheTransacTionwasfrauduienT.} In These circumsTances, wiThouT conducTing an inquiry The respondenT No.3 has commiTTed an illegaliTy in passing The^{order,whichhasbeenaffirmedby} The superior auThoriTy^{andTherefore,IamofTheopinionThaTThewriT} peTiTion^{deservesTobeallowed.}

¶22

ConsequenTly, The wriT peTiTion is allowed; impugned orders are hereby and The maTTer is remiTTed back To The respondenT No.3—5ub

¶23

quashed Divisional Officer (R),^{MahasamundfordecidingThemaTTerafreshafTer} providing^{opporTuniTyofhearingToThepeTiTionerandconducTinginquiryin} The maTTer. The applicanT shall remain presenT before The respondenT

¶24

No.3 on 16.10.20L2‘.

¶25

é. CerTified copy as per^rules.

¶26

Sd/T.P Shanna Judge

¶27

r-oshan/—

Krishnachand v. Dditional Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnachand v. Dditional Commissioner 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

Bhim Sent and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Agrawal Vs Dr. Rumi Gond and Ors.

Rajendra Saluja Vs M/S Sundaram Finance Ltd. and Another

Igun Prasad and Ors. Vs Board of Revenue and Ors.

Dhani Ram Rathore Vs State of C.G.

Inder Vs Commissioner Bastar Division,Bastar