Allowed

Bhondu @ Barati v. Bhangin Bai

Chhattisgarh HC13 Sept 2022WP227/588/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition, the High Court set aside the Board of Revenue's order which invalidated a revenue mutation grant. The Court held that proceedings via Section 178/110 weren't needed for recording names of family members in a purchased property and rejected the ancestral claim due to lack of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; order of the Board of Revenue dated 06-06-2018 set aside.

Bhondu @ Barati Vs Bhangin Bai — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WP227 No. 588 of 2018

¶5

Bhondu @ Barati S/o Rewaram Lodhi, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village-Parasbod, Tahsil- Saja, District-- Bemetara, Chhattisgrh......... (Revisioner), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶6

Komal S/o Bhondu @ Barati, Aged About 23 Years, R/o VillageParasbod, Tahsil- Saja, District-- Bemetara, Chhattisgrh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶7

Narendra S/o Bhondu @ Barati, Aged About 30 Years, R/o VillageParasbod, Tahsil- Saja, District-- Bemetara, Chhattisgrh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Smt. Taran Bai W/o Shri Bhondu @ Barati, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village- Parasbod, Tahsil- Saja, District-- Bemetara, Chhattisgrh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

Bhangin Bai W/o Shri Rewaram Lodhi, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Village- Parasbode Tahsil - Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Smt. Pushpabai W/o Shri Kamtaprasad Lodhi Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village- Paleni Tahsil- Than Khamhariya, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶13

Smt. Kumari Bai W/o Shri Bharat Lodhi Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village- Dagniya, Tahsil- Than Khamhariya, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶14

Smt. Pyari Bai W/o Shri Ashok Lodhi, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village- Ghutmura, Tahsil-Berla, Distirct- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶15

Smt. Prabhabai W/o Shri Dwarika Lodhi Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village- Sajan, Tahsil- Than Khamhariya District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶16

Smt. Bhagwati Bai W/o Late Meenaram Patel Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Parasbod, Tahsil -Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶17

Girdhari S/o Late Rewaram Lodhi Aged About 42 Years, R/o VillageParasbod, Tahsil- Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶18

---- Respondents

¶19

¶20

For Petitioners – Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. For Respondents – Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. or

¶21

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶22

13-09-2022

¶23

This petition is filed against the order passed by the Board of Revenue in Revenue Revision No.R.N/23R/A-6/179/2017 dated 06-06-2018 whereby the order passed by the Additional Commissioner Durg Division dated 12-062017 has been set aside and it is held that the order of mutation passed by the Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner on 03-03-1998 is contrary to law and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶24

2 . The case is like that, the petitioner No.1 Bhondu purchased a plot Nos.941 admeasuring 2.61 hectare and 1832 admeasuring 3.05 hectare along with other survey numbers from one Ratiram vide Annexure P/1 through registered sale deed dated 10-03-1971. Thereafter, an application was moved by petitioner No.1 Bhondu to record the name of his wife Taran Bai in revenue records over survey No.941 admeasuring 2.61 hectare and names of Narendra and Komal, his sons, over survey No.1832 admeasuring 3.05 hectare. The above survey numbers were recorded in the name of Taran Bai and Narendra and Komal vide mutation No.33 order dated 03-031998.

¶25

After a lapse of 13 years Bhangin Bai, mother of petitioner No.1 and her four sisters filed appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer against the order of mutation on the ground that the property in question is ancestral property and they have got equal right over the same. The Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 04-03-2014 allowed the appeal preferred by respondents No.1 to 5.

¶26

The petitioners herein preferred appeal against the order passed by

¶27

¶28

the Sub-Divisional Officer before the Commissioner, Division Durg and it was transferred to the Additional Commissioner Durg, for hearing and vide order dated 12-06-2017 the appeal preferred by the petitioners was allowed.

¶29

The respondents No.1 to 5 preferred revision before the Board of Revenue against the order of the Commissioner and vide order dated 06-062018 the Board of Revenue has reversed the finding recorded by the Commissioner on the ground that the provisions contained in Section 178 and 110 of the Land Revenue Code have not been complied with. It is also held by the Board of Revenue that whether the Tahsildar has exercised the powers given under Section 178 or 178(A) of the Land Revenue Code, is not clear. Further, the rules framed therein have not been complied with and the property in question is ancestral property, therefore, all the parties have equal share and right over it.

¶30

3 . Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that survey numbers of the plots in question have been changed and documents have been filed to demonstrate that the earlier survey No.941 was recorded as survey No.419 and survey No.1832 was recorded as 1388 in the other revenue records. He further submits that the property was purchased vide Ex.-P/1 through a registered sale deed dated 10-03-1971 for a consideration of Rs.5000/- from one Ratiram. The land in question was never recorded in the name of Revaram or other respondents. The property is self acquired property of Bhondu and no one has right over the the same. He also submits that the Board of Revenue, in absence of any document, came to the conclusion that the property in question is ancestral property and the finding given is erroneous.

¶31

4 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the property is ancestral one. The Board of Revenue has rightly set aside the order passed by the Commissioner. The Tahsildar without following the procedure contemplated under Section 178 and 110 of C.G. Land Revenue

¶32

¶33

Code and without following the Rule 27 of the Land Revenue Code has mutated the names of wife and sons of Bhondu, which is not in accordance with law. The property is recorded in the name of wife and sons of petitioner No.1. The respondents are family members and they have equal right over the suit property. He further submits that a civil suit was filed before the competent civil court pertaining to the same issue, but the same was dismissed. First appeal filed by the petitioners is pending before this High Court. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the sale deed was not filed before the revenue courts and for the very first time it has been filed before this Court.

¶34

5 . I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶35

6 . From the documents Annexure-P/1 it appears that the property was purchased by the petitioner No.1 in the year 1971, therefore, an application was moved by him to record name of his wife Taran Bai and his children in revenue records and same was allowed vide order dated 03-03-1998. Till 2011 there was no dispute regarding the land in question and thereafter, appeal was preferred before the Sub-Divisional Officer by respondents No.1 to 5 and it was allowed. Against which appeal was preferred by the petitioners before the Commissioner and the same was allowed vide order dated 12-06-2017. Respondents No.1 and 5 thereafter preferred revision before the Board of Revenue and it has been allowed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 06-06-2018. The finding arrived at by the Board of Revenue that the provisions contained in Section 178 and 110 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code have not been complied with is unwanted and uncalled for, because the application was moved by the petitioner No.1 for mutation of his own property in the name of his wife and children therefore, there was no occasion to comply with the provisions contained in Section 178 and 110 of the Land Revenue Code. The application under Section 178 and 110 of the

¶36

¶37

Land Revenue Code was not moved by the respondents side, therefore, this finding is erroneous. Further, there is no document to demonstrate that the property in question is ancestral property, for that reason finding recorded by the Board of Revenue that the property is ancestral property is misconceived. Though, the oral submission has been made by learned counsel for the respondents that the first appeal is pending, but in this regard no document has been filed.

¶38

7 . As a fallout and consequence of above discussion, this petition is allowed and the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 06-06-2018 is hereby set aside.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶41

Aadil

Bhondu @ Barati v. Bhangin Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhondu @ Barati v. Bhangin Bai

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

Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Balram Das Vaishnav Vs Smt.Saroj Vaishnav and Another

Smt. Usha Gupta Vs Devi Prasad Gupta

Radheshyam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Fulmati Vs Injoriya Bai

Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh