Dismissed

Lakhanlal and Ors. v. Smt. Sarji Bai (Died) Through Lrs.

Chhattisgarh HC13 Sept 2023WP227/2923/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a Board of Revenue order restoring a lower revenue authority's decision upholding a sale of tribal property. The Court dismissed the petition, holding the second revision was maintainable, the transaction involved tribal members so Section 165(6) LRC didn't apply, and there were no grounds to interfere with the SDO's factual findings.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed for lack of merit as the order of the Board of Revenue was found to be correct in law and fact.

Lakhanlal and Ors. Vs Smt. Sarji Bai (Died) Through Lrs. — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WP227 No. 2923 of 2009

¶5

Lakhanlal S/o Shri Somnath, Caste Halba, R/o Village Pandriparni, Tehsil and District Kanker Chhattisgarh.

¶6

Ramji S/o Shri Somnath, Caste Halba, R/o Village Pandriparni, Tehsil and District Kanker Chhattisgarh.

¶7

Chandravati Wd/o Late Radhelal, Caste Halba, R/o Village Pandriparni, Tehsil and District Kanker Chhattisgarh.

¶8

Sripal (Died) Through Lrs. As Per Honble Court Order Dated 20-06-2022

¶9

4(A). Smt. Subita Nag W/o Late Shri Sripal Aged About 35 Years R/o Pandripani, P.S. and Tehsil Kanker District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.

¶10

4(B). Lindika Nag D/o Late Sripal Aged About 15 Years R/o Pandripani, P.S. and Tehsil Kanker District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4(C). Niranjan Nag S/o Late Sripal Aged About 12 Years R/o Pandripani P.S. and Tehsil Kanker District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Dinanath S/o Late Radhelal, Caste Halba, Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Chandrawati, R/o Village Pandripani, Tehsil and District Kanker.

¶13

Gayatri D/o Late Radhelal, Caste - Halba, Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Chandrawati, R/o Village Pandripani, Tehsil and District Kanker.

¶14

---- Petitioners

¶15

Versus

¶16

Smt. Sarji Bai (Died) Through Lrs. As Per Honble Court Order Dated 2006-2022.1(A) Amarjeet Dubey son of mother Sarji Bai W/o S.N. Dubey aged about 22 years, R/o Subhash Ward Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) Deleted as per Hon'ble Court Order dated 31/08/2023

¶17

Shambhu Nath Dubey S/o Girija Shankar Dubey Advocate, R/o Thanwasi, Subhash Ward, Kanker.

¶18

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Kanker Chhattisgarh.

¶19

The Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh Bench Raipur.

¶20

---- Respondents

¶21

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶22

For Petitioners – Mr. Raveesh Verma, Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, Advocates.

¶23

For Respondent No.2 – Mr. R.K. Pali, Advocate.

¶24

-2-

¶25

For State – Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate.

¶26

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶27

13-09-2023

¶28

The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No.264/A/23/2002-03 parties being 'Sarji Bai V. Lakhan Lal' dated 06.12.2006 whereby the revision preferred by Sarji Bai was allowed and the order passed by the Collector Kanker on 04.01.2001 and the order passed by the Commissioner, Division Bastar dated 19.09.2002 have been set aside and the order passed by the SubDivisional Officer (Revenue) Kanker dated 04.05.2002 has been restored.

¶29

Facts of the present case are that the property in question was recorded in the name of Somnath who belonged to aboriginal tribe. The entire property of Somnath bearing Survey No. 65/7, 71/A, 7/1C, 45/40, 4/50 admeasuring 5 acres situated at Pandripali, Tahsil Kanker was sold out through registered sale deeds dated 14.12.1981 and 05.10.1982 to respondent No.1. A civil suit was filed by respondent No.1 bearing Civil Suit No.76A/1995 against Somnath claiming therein relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction on the ground that the property was purchased through registered sale deeds. The civil suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge Class II, Kanker vide judgment dated 24.01.1996. After death of Somnath, an application was moved by the petitioners before the Additional Collector Kanker according to the provisions of Section 165A to declare the sale deeds executed in favour of respondent No.1 null and void. The application was referred to the SDO (Revenue). The SDO (Revenue) registered the Revenue Case No.19/A/23/94-95 and after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties dismissed the application vide order dated 04.05.2000. The

¶30

-3-

¶31

petitioners challenged the order dated 04.05.2000 before the Collector, Kanker and the appeal was registered as 14/A/99-2000. The Collector, Kanker after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties vide order dated 04.01.2001 allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioners and quashed the order dated 04.05.2000. Respondent No.1 preferred revision before the Commissioner and the same was also dismissed. Respondent No.1 preferred Second Revision before the Board of Revenue and the same has been allowed vide order dated 06.12.2006 and orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner were set aside and the order passed by the SDO(Revenue) has been restored.

¶32

Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that second revision preferred by respondent No.1 before the Board of Revenue was not maintainable according to the provisions under Section 50 of the CGLRC. He would also submit that the property was ancestral, therefore, Somnath had no right to alienate the entire property. He would further submit that no permission was obtained according to provisions of Section 165(6) of the LRC, therefore also the transaction was null and void. He would submit that the order passed by the Board of Revenue is erroneous as well as bad in law, therefore, liable to be set-aside.

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Mr. Pali would submit that the property was purchased through the registered sale deeds dated 14.12.1981 and 05.10.1982 by Somnath. He would further submit that the civil suit was filed by respondent No.1 against Somnath and the same was contested by Somnath and thereafter the civil suit was decreed in favour of respondent No.1 and that judgment was never challenged and thus, it attained finality. He would also submit that there was no need to obtain permission according to provisions of Section 165(6) of the LRC as the transaction was between Scheduled Tribes.

¶34

-4-

¶35

Learned counsel for the State would support the order passed by the Board of Revenue.

¶36

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

¶37

On a perusal of the documents and the impugned order, it is clear that the entire property was recorded in the name of Somnath in the revenue records. Somnath sold the property to a member of Tribe, respondent No.1, who later on, married to respondent No.2. The property was alienated through two separate sale deeds dated 14.12.1981 and 05.10.1982. There was some dispute, therefore, a civil suit was filed by respondent No.1 before the Civil Judge Class II Kanker bearing Civil Suit No.76A/1995 for declaration of title and permanent injunction and the same was decreed by the learned Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.01.1996. It is also not in dispute that the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge attained finality as no appeal was preferred by the petitioners against that judgment. Somnath was the defendant in the civil suit and he contested the case. After death of Somnath, the petitioners who are his legal representatives moved an application under Section 165(6) before the Additional Collector, Kanker, who, in turn, referred the application to the SDO(Revenue). The SDO(Revenue) registered the case and after appreciation of documentary and oral evidence rejected the application moved by the petitioners vide order dated 04.05.2000. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order passed by the SDO (Revenue) dated 04.05.2000 preferred an appeal before the Collector, Kanker and the same was allowed. The Revision was preferred by respondent No.1 before the Commissioner and the same was dismissed, against which a second revision was preferred before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue after

¶38

-5-

¶39

affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties allowed the revision preferred by respondent No.1, against which the petitioners have filed the present petition.

¶40

Now, coming to the first argument raised by Mr. Verma that second revision is barred according to Section 50 of the CGLRC. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in W.P. No.1450/2014 (Motilal V. Premsingh), decided on March 24, 2014, reported in 2014 SCC OnLine MP 2852 has held as under :

¶41

“The Single Bench of this Court in the matter of Balu v. Mukesh reported in 2005 R.N. 34 has taken the view that under Section 50 of the Code, the revision is maintainable before the Board against the order of the Commissioner, passed in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.”

¶42

Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable.

¶43

Now, coming to the next contention that provisions of Section 165(6) have not been complied with. The property was recorded in the name of Somnath, he sold the entire property through registered sale deeds. During his lifetime no objection was raised either by Somnath or his legal representatives and after his death an application was moved by the petitioners and the SDO(Revenue) after due enquiry and affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties rejected the application moved by the petitioners. It is also held by the SDO(Revenue) that it was a transaction between the tribes, therefore, provisions of Section 165(6) would not attract. The finding recorded by the SDO (Revenue) has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue. The findings recorded by the SDO(Revenue) and the Board of Revenue are findings of facts and in the absence of any illegality, I do not find any ground to interfere with

¶44

-6-

¶45

these findings.

¶46

10.Taking into consideration that the civil suit was filed and the same was decreed in favour of respondent No.1 and that the judgment passed by the civil court has not been challenged by the petitioners before any forum and further considering the peculiar facts of the present case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Board of Revenue. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that it was a case of benami transaction, but this aspect was not taken into consideration by the SDO (Revenue).

¶48

12.With regard to benami transaction the petitioners have neither taken any plea in this petition nor argued this ground earlier, and the same has been raised for the first time before this Court, therefore, it cannot be entertained.

¶49

13.In the result, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶52

Aadil

Lakhanlal and Ors. v. Smt. Sarji Bai (Died) Through Lrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhanlal and Ors. v. Smt. Sarji Bai (Died) Through Lrs.

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

Laxmin Bai Vs Mitthuram Sahu

Radhelal Vs Santosh

Vijendra Singh Vs Union of India

Smt. Jaimvati Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Yechuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abdul Haleem Khan Vs Jabbar Mohammed