Allowed

Jagdish Prasad Bansal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2023WA/370/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the High Court of Chhattisgarh set aside an order admitting a revenue review petition after limitation. The court held that the subordinate authority erred in admitting a petition based on a 'substitute view' rather than errors apparent on the face of the record, violating statutory principles and precedents.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was allowed; the order dated 21.08.2023 and the order dated 22.06.2023 admitting the review petition were set aside.

Jagdish Prasad Bansal Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Appeal No.370 of 2023

¶4

Jagdish Prasad Bansal, aged 65 years, S/o-Late Ramphal Agrawal, R/o-Ward No.11, Jhulkadam Road Sakti, Police Station & TahsilSakti, District-Janjgir-Champa (Now District Sakti) (CG)

¶5

---- Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary, Department of the Revenue Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Tahsil & District-Raipur (CG)

¶8

Chairman Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG)

¶9

Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sakti, Police Station & TahsilSakti, District-Janjgir-Champa (Now District Sakti) (CG)

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

Cause-title taken from Case Information System

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 3 : Mr.Gagan Tiwari, Dy.G.A.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶14

Hon'ble Shri N.K.Chandravanshi, Judge

¶15

Judgment on Board

¶16

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶17

15.09.2023

¶18

Heard Mr.Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 3/State.

¶19

By way of this writ appeal, the appellant has prayed for following relief:-

¶20

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly

¶21

¶22

be pleased to allow the instant appeal and set aside the order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench in Writ Petition (C) No.3719/2023, parties “Jagdish Prasad Bansal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others” and further be pleased to set aside the order dated 22.06.2023 passed by the respondent no.2 in Revenue Review Case No.RW/06/R/B-121/40/2021 between “State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Jagdish Prasad Bansal” and allow the objection of the appellant/petitioner, is in the interest of justice.”

¶23

Brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are that the appellant preferred Revision Case No.RN/06/R/B-121/116/2018 against the order dated 21.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in Revenue Revision Case No.190/B121/2015-16 before respondent No.2, which was allowed by respondent No.2 vide order dated 20.05.2020. Thereafter, the appellant moved an application under Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called as “Code’) before respondent No.2 for correction of the mistake, which apparent face on record, which was also allowed by respondent No.2 vide order dated 29.10.2020.

¶24

On 22.11.2021 respondent No.3 preferred a review petition under Section 51 of the Code before respondent No.2 against the order dated 20.05.2020 passed by respondent No.2 in Revenue Revision Case No.RN/06/R/B-121/116/2018 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the review petition. The appellant filed reply to the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein specifically stated that the

¶25

¶26

review petition preferred by respondent No.3 is hopelessly barred by limitation and respondent No.3 has not explained the delay in filing the review petition and also made an objection about the maintainability of the review petition.

¶27

Respondent No.2 by order dated 22.06.2023 allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay in filing the review petition and also dismissed the objection raised by the appellant and admitted the review for hearing. The order dated 22.06.2023 passed by respondent No.2 is against the scope of review as per Section 51 of the Code as well as Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶28

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 22.06.2023 passed by respondent No.2, the appellant preferred WPC No.3719/2023 before this Court, which was disposed of by the learned Single Bench of this Court vide order 21.08.2023 by observing as under:-

¶29

“5. From the order dated 22.6.2023 and submission of counsel for respective parties, it is apparent that by the impugned order Board of Revenue has only allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, dismissed the objection and fixed the review petition for final hearing. Perusal of the order in particular para-5 would show that the review petition was admitted for hearing. Petitioner is still having the opportunity to object with regard to allowing of the review on merits.

¶30

So far as the submission of counsel for the petitioner with regard to condoning delay is concerned in the application reason for delay is explained which is recorded

¶31

¶32

in the order in para-3 reply of the non-applicant/petitioner is also recorded in para-4 of the order and considering entire submission has passed the order, admitting the review petition for hearing after application of mind. Hence, the submission of counsel for petitioner that application for condonation of delay is without any reason or basis is not sustainable and is repelled.

¶33

In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of case, this writ petition is disposed of permitting petitioner to raise all the grounds on merits of review petition before the Board of Revenue. If such grounds are raised, the Board of Revenue shall consider all the grounds to be raised, while deciding application under Section 51 of the Code of 1959.”

¶34

Mr.Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order dated 21.08.2023 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and against the settled principle of law, thus liable to be set aside. The learned Single Judge failed to conclude that the review petition pending before respondent No.2 is maintainable or not as per the objection raised by the appellant. He further submits that the leaned Single Judge further failed to consider the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the conclusion of the learned Single Judge in para 6 of the impugned order is not in accordance with law. He also submits that the learned Single Judge has not considered the objection raised by the appellant about the maintainability of the review petition. As such, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.3719/2023 deserves to be set aside and also set aside the order dated 22.06.2023 passed by respondent No.2 in Revenue Review Case No.RW/06/R/B-121/40/2021

¶35

¶36

between “State of Chhattisgarh v. Jagdish Prasad Bansal” and allowed the objection of the appellant.

¶37

On the other hand, Mr.Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 3/State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter, has disposed of the writ petition permitting the writ petitioner to raise all the grounds on merits of review petition before the Board of Revenue. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶38

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶39

We have perused the review application and application for condonation of delay in filing the review application before respondent no. 2, wherein respondent No. 3 willing to review the order dated 20.05.2020 passed by respondent No. 2 on the ground that respondent No. 2 passed the order contrary to the facts. Respondent No. 3 has explained the cause of delay that she was appointed as Incharge Officer on 28.09.2021 and thereafter she obtained relevant documents and she preferred the review application on 22.11.2021.

¶40

We have also perused the objection raised by the appellant/writ petitioner about the maintainability of the review application as well as the reply of the application for condonation of delay. The

¶41

¶42

appellant/writ petitioner has taken the ground that the order passed by respondent No. 2 is the reasoned order and based on the evidence available on record. Therefore, the order dated 20.05.2020 passed by respondent No. 2 is not revisiable and respondent No.3 has failed to explain the cause of delay in filing the review application.

¶43

Respondent No. 3 preferred the review application before Respondent no. 2 as per Section 51 of the Code, which is maintainable as per Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of the Civil Procedure. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of the Civil Procedure provides as under:-

¶44

“ 1. Application for review of judgment .-(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-

¶45

(a) by a decree or Order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

¶46

(b) by a decree or Order from which no appeal is allowed, or

¶47

¶48

and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or Order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or Order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the Order.”

¶49

Section 51 of the Code provides as under:-

¶50

¶51

“ 51. Review of orders . –(1) The Board and every Revenue Officer may, either on its/his own motion or on the application of any party interested review any order passed by itself/himself or by any of its/his predecessors in office and pass such order in reference thereto as it/he thinks fit : Provided that-

¶52

(i) if the Commissioner, Settlement Commissioner, Collector or Settlement Officer thinks it necessary to review any order which he has not himself passed, he shall first obtain the sanction of the Board, and if an officer subordinate to a Collector or Settlement Officer proposes to review any order, whether passed by himself or by any predecessor, he shall first obtain the sanction in writing of the authority to whom he is immediately subordinate;

¶53

(i-a) no order shall be varied or reversed unless notice has been given to the parties interested to appear and be heard in support of such order;

¶54

(ii) no order from which an appeal has been made, or which is the subject of any revision proceedings shall, so long as such appeal or proceedings are pending be reviewed;

¶55

(iii) no order affecting any question of right between private persons shall be reviewed except on the application of a party to the proceedings, and no application for the review of such order shall be entertained unless it is made within ninety days from the passing of the order.

¶56

(2) No order shall be reviewed except on the grounds provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908).

¶57

(3) For the purposes of this section the Collector shall be deemed to be the successor in office of any Revenue Officer who has left the district or who has ceased to exercise powers as a Revenue Officer and to whom there is no successor in the district.

¶58

¶59

(4) An order which has been dealt with in appeal or on revision shall not be reviewed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to the appellate or revisional authority.”

¶60

From perusal of the record of the writ petition as well as the order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Bench, it appears that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the settled principle of law about the maintainability of the review application as per Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also failed to consider the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayavati reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the principle that when the review will be maintainable (i) discovery of the new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, (iii) any other sufficient reason.

¶61

Similar view was laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Lily Thomos Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that the power of review can be exercised for correction of the mistake and not to substitute a view and recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court has affirmed the aforesaid principle in the matter of S. Madhusudan Reddy Vs. V. Narayana Reddy & others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1034 .

¶62

From perusal of the records, it appears that respondent No. 3 willing to revive the order dated 20.05.2020 on the ground of

¶63

¶64

substitute view and not on the ground of any apparent error or mistake or any evidence, which has not within the knowledge when order has been passed. Respondent No. 2 admitted the review application in the contravention of the aforesaid settled principle of law, which has failed to consider by the learned Single Bench while disposing of the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner.

¶65

Applying the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above-stated judgments (supra) to the facts of the present case and considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the documents available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has committed grave legal error in passing the impugned order.

¶66

Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.3719 of 2023 is set aside and consequent thereto, the order dated 22.06.2023 passed by respondent No. 2 in Revenue Review Case No. RW/06/R/B-121/40/2021 between “State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Jagdish Prasad Bansal” is also set aside by allowing the objection raised by the appellant/writ petitioner leaving it open to respondent No.3 to take recourse to law against the order dated 20.05.2020 passed by respondent No.2 before the appropriate forum/Court.

¶67

Sd/- Sd/-

¶68

(N.K.Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶69

Bablu

Jagdish Prasad Bansal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Prasad Bansal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Chhattisgarh Vs V.N. Pandey

Smt.khedi Bai Sahu Vs Smt.thaneshwari Sahu And Ors.

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Ratiram

Gopal Sagarwanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Putka @ Sahil Kumar @ Purendra Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Rajesh @ Raju Jaiswal