This court dismissed a writ petition challenging orders that declared a land sale void. The court held that the purchaser failed to comply with Section 170-B of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, making the transaction void ab initio.
The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Hz %Im xHm: .mcaa gcuH1vacn DA ubmnrncm .MIN ,zEH... m.m‘..H._IHOZZD. <sup>wQae . .w Lia mui;.7 m3aww .r, aa:«w %@m«a ¥ m” m§3 iw r; m/mFW» vxiiwlAw x K F 3i #Cniwm urn. w 33% hjwv p: ;.. r... 33w1caaj& m3&w f ujw 32%wzaaj$ gym” $m %@&x&q &‘:wrm3%,$w1 ‘ amzag fury.“b%v La 1:44q4&
_4 .hrE.i mTi 5.3“ z2?yc
‘w ;& a:a~:
= .w
&:Kw $<mammj‘ %3i&£« h1m‘$¢%w a. mg , %EFMMuM
W% V. ¥,
'j x wEiiT‘F‘ETITIUN;UNDEEI QFJTIELE EEEfEE?’ DF THEA CDNSTilTUTIDN BF INDIA FER a WRIT wTHE NATURE BF HRNDAMUS, IZEEtTIDRAFiI ETE.ETC.
[DETAILS g1PETITUJN.
V
w;
Ap
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
8.3.: HON’BLE MR. ABHAY MANOHAR SAPREJ.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5736 OF 2000
PETITIONERS Uday Kant Jha and others
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS Commissioner, Bastar Division and others
¢
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2261227OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Present: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, AdvocatewithMr.Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arvind Kumar Dubey, P.L. for theState.
ORDER (Passedon 26/ 1 1/2012)
(1) This is a writ petition filed by legal representativesof original revision petitioner under Article 226/227 .of the Constitution of India against the orderdated 23.6.97 passed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpurin Revision Case N0. 49/A-23/91—92. (Annexure- P-4).
(2) In order to appreciate the issue involvedinthecase,it is necessary to state the facts of the casein‘briefinfra.
(3) One Lekhan was the original holderoftheagricultural land bearing Kh. No. 137/2 area1.58 acreandKh.No.137/3 area 1.00 acre total area 2.58 acres situatedinvillageSargipal Tahsil Jagdalpur. He was aboriginal tribe. TherespondentN0. 5 is Lekhan’s son. It is on record, that 13.9.68, Lekhan sold this land to one Inder (respondent N0. >4)andInder within one month i.e. on 29.10.68 sold by another sale deed to one Anirudha (father of writ petitioners here).
(4) Anirudha then claimed that heobtained permission from Collector on 18.4.72 for purchase of thislandfromInder and the same was also grantedtohim.ThisishowAnirudha claimed that he became ownerof thelandlawfully.
(5) It is this transaction which was probedonfactsunder the provision of the Land Revenue Codeaftercomingintoforce the provisions of the Section l70—BoftheActinthe year1980 by the Sub Divisional Officer. Notices were issued to the parties. The S.D.O. held after holding an inquiry that the transaction of sale referred above in favour ofAnirudhaisnull, and void and While setting aside of the same directed the purchaser of the land i. e. Anirudha to return the land to original holder i.e. to Lekhan and since in the meantime Lekhan had diedfand thereforeit was directedtoreturntohis son (respondent N0. 5). This orderwasupheldbytheCollector in appeal and further upheld in revisionbytheBoardwhen both the authorities dismissed the revision/appeal filed by writ petitioner which is now under challenge by legal representative of late Anirudha.
i,.
(6) So the short question that arises for considerationin this writ petition is whether Courts below were justified in declaring the transaction in question to be void’ being in contravention of provisions of Section 170—B of M. P. Land Revenue Code.
(7) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, I am of the considered opinion that writ petition is entirely devoid of any merit and hence deserves rejection.
(8) In my opinion, the factual findings recorded by all the Courts below i.e. S.D.O., Collector and Board of Revenue are pure findings of facts and being concurrent in nature are binding on the writ Court. It is apart from the fact that they are otherwise properly recorded and hence does not call for any interference.
(9) r Indeed on coming into force Section 170—B in the year 1980, it was obligatory upon the writ petitioner’s father (late Anirudha) — being the purchaser of the land from the prohibitedcategoryof personstohaveinformedthecompetent authority specified in the section of the transaction suo—moto.
3
He failed to do it. This non—compliance rendered the sale made in favour of the writ petitioner’s father void.
(10) If _the party fails to ensure compliance of statutory provision then the consequence provided in law must take its colour against the person concern. This is what has‘ happened in this case.
(11) So far as obtaining of‘permission from Collector is concerned, suffice it to say, it is of no consequence for the simple reason that the so called permission was obtained by the writ petitioner’s father prior to insertion of Section 170B. The writ petitioner's father was therefore under obligation to obtain permission from the competent authority as specified in Section l70B. It was not done.
(12) ‘ Itisc‘learyfrom the finding that Anirudha was held to be Benami owner of the suit land for one month from 13.9.68 to 29. 10.68 because first he got the sale deed from Lekhan in favour of Inder and within one from first the sale deed of lnder gotit second one executed in his favour ‘ on 29.10.68. There wasno justificaijon for Inder to sellithe land withinone month to Anirudha. There» is also a finding of fact that Anirudha continued to remain in possession of the suit land to the exclusion of Inder since its inception. This also indicated that sale was essentially in favour of Anirudha who was a non— tribal.
(13) tribal .lf the sale of land is made by in favour of non~ tribal then it must satisfy the requirement of Section l70—B of the Act else it is a void sale. The burden is on the purchaser to provethat he has satisfied all such requirements.
(14) All the Courts below have rightly‘recorded a finding in favour of original holder of the land— Lekhan and on his death, in favour of his son’ —Pito (respondent No. 5) that the sale made by Lekhan in favour of Inder and then in favour of Anirudha was a void one being in contravention of the provision of Section 170-B because the purchaser of the land
(Anirudha) failed to prove that he fulfilled the necessary requirements of Section 170—B ibid. I concur with these finding as in my opinion they are properly recorded.
(15) In the light of foregoing discussion, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
No cost(s).
W.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether courts below were justified in declaring the land transaction void being in contravention of Section 170-B of the M.P. Land Revenue Code.
Whether the purchaser of tribal land failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 170-B rendering the sale void.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Uday Kant Jha
Pito
Lekhan's son
Commissioner, Bastar Division
Abhay Manohar Sapre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
