Allowed

Jagdish Prasad Bansal v. Laxmin Bai and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jun 2024WP227/552/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to quash an order passed by the Additional Commissioner taking suo-motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. The Court held that such jurisdiction must be exercised within a reasonable time, relying on the Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in Ranveer Singh, and found a four-year delay unreaso

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order dated 25.08.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Division Bilaspur.

Jagdish Prasad Bansal Vs Laxmin Bai and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WP227 No. 552 of 2013

¶5

Jagdish Prasad Bansal S/o Late Ramphal Aged About 56 Years Caste Agrawal, R/o Sakti, Police Station And Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Laxmin Bai D/o Samaru Caste Kanwar, R/o Kandanara, P S And Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2. Dharmin D/o Samaru, Caste Kanwar R/o Temar, P S And Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3. Santoshi D/o Samaru, Caste Kanwar R/o Gastidih, Kesla, P S And Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4. Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Tahsil, PS And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

5. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue Department Mantralaya Raipur, Tahsil, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

(CAUSE TITLE DOWNLAODED FROM CIS PERIPHERY)

¶15

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Applicant : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶17

14.06.2024

¶18

1. Invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed this Petition questioning legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 25.08.2012 passed by Additional Commissioner, DivisionBilaspur, Bilaspur in Revenue Case No.40/A-21/2011-

¶19

¶20

12(Annexure P-1) whereby the Additional Commissioner registered suo-motu revision on 25.08.2012 under Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code.

¶21

2. Facts in brief necessary for disposal of this petition are that the suit land originally belonged to respondent No.1 to 3 and they had filed an application under Section 165(6) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) for grant of permission to sell their land bearing Khasra No.444/3 admeasuring area 0.43 acres situated at Village Sothi, Patwari Circle No. 7, Tehsil- Sakti, District-Janjgir-Champa(C.G.). After the enquiry conduced by concerned Tehsildar, learned Additional Collector passed an order on 26.07.2007 and accorded permission for sale of the questioned land to the petitioner and for which a registry has been executed on 26.09.2007. After passing of said order, vide impugned order dated 25.08.2012 Additional Commissioner has taken up the matter in suo-motu revision under Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code. Hence this Petition.

¶22

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as the petitioner has purchased the subject land in accordance with law after obtaining permission under Section 165(6) of the Land Revenue Code and after lapse of four years, the Additional Commissioner could not have exercised suo-motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Code against the order dated 26.07.2007 granting permission to transfer subject land to the aboriginal tribe under Section 165(6) of the Code to the

¶23

¶24

petitioner. He would place reliance in the matter of Ranveer Singh(deceased by L.Rs.) and Anr vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , AIR 2011 Madhya Pradesh 27 (FB) .

¶25

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would support the impugned order.

¶26

5. It is well settled law, that the suo-motu revisional jurisdiction must be exercised within reasonable time. If no period of limitation is prescribed for exercise of revisional power in the statute governing such jurisdiction, what should be the reasonable period should be judged with reference to nature of the statute itself and rights and liabilities thereunder. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited [ AIR 2007 SC(Supp) 473 ], held that reasonable period of limitation may be borne out from the statutory scheme of the Act.

¶27

6. Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code provides as under:-

¶28

“ 50. Revision . - (1) The Board or the Commissioner or the [Settlement Commissioner or the Collector or the Settlement Officer] may at any time on its/his motion or on the application made by any party for the purpose of satisfying itself/himself as to legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of any Revenue Officer subordinate to it/him call for, and examine the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by such officer, and may

¶29

¶30

pass such order in reference thereto as it/he thinks fit:

¶31

Provided that-

¶32

[(i) no application for revision shall be entertained-

¶33

(a) against an order appealable under this Code;

¶34

(b) against an order of the Settlement Commissioner under Section 210;

¶35

(c) against an order passed in revision by the Commissioner of the Settlement Commissioner in respect of cases under S. 170-B, nor shall any such order be revised by the Board on its own motion];

¶36

(ii) no such application shall be entertained unless presented within sixty days to the Commissioner or [Settlement Commissioner or the Collector or the Settlement Officer] as the case may be, or within ninety days to the Board of Revenue from the date of the order and in computing the period aforesaid, time requisite for obtaining a copy of the said order shall be excluded;

¶37

(iii) no order shall be varied or reversed in revision unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them of being heard.

¶38

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) –

¶39

(i) where proceedings in respect of any case have been commenced by the Board under sub-section (1) no action shall be taken by the Commissioner or the [Settlement Commissioner or the Collector or the Settlement Officer] in respect thereof;

¶40

[(ii) where proceedings in respect of any case have been commenced by the Commissioner or the Settlement Commissioner under sub-section (1), no action shall be taken by the Collector or the Settlement Officer in respect thereof;]

¶41

[(iii) where proceedings in respect of any such case have been commenced by the Commissioner, Settlement Commissioner, Collector or Settlement Officer under sub-section (1), the Board may either refrain from taking any action under this Section in respect of such case until the final disposal of such proceedings by the Commissioner or the Settlement Commissioner or the Collector or the Settlement Officer, as the case may be, or may withdraw such proceedings and pass such order as it may deem fit;]

¶42

[(iv) where proceedings in respect of any such case have been commenced by the Collector or the Settlement Officer under subsection (1), the Commissioner or the Settlement Commissioner may either refrain from taking any action under this section in respect of such case until the final disposal of such proceedings by the Collector or the Settlement Officer, as the case may be, or may withdraw such proceedings and pass such order as it may deem fit;]

¶43

Explanation.- For the purpose of this section all Revenue Officers shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Board.”

¶44

¶45

7. No period of limitation has been prescribed for taking suo-motu action under Section 50 of the Code. The Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 is a replica and contains paramateria provisions as that of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. The Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Ranveer Singh (supra) while considering the question of reasonable period for exercise of suo-motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Code, answered the question holding that the suo-motu revisional jurisdiction must be exercised within 180 days from the date of knowledge of illegality by observing as under:-

¶46

" 38. ..............The suo motu powers can be exercised by the revisional authority envisaged under Section 50 of the Code within a period of 180 days from the date of the knowledge of illegality, impropriety and irregularity of the proceedings committed by any revenue officer subordinate to it even if the immovable property is Government land or having some public interest. What should be the irreparable loss, it should be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case as no definite yardstick in that regard can be drawn.

¶47

We have already mentioned hereinabove certain instances which can be said to be the "irreparable loss."

¶48

8. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, in the instant case, as the Additional Collector has granted permission for transfer of subject land of the aboriginal tribe to the petitioner under Section 165(6) of the Code on 26.07.2007(P-7). The aboriginal tribe has not made any complaint and a suo-motu revisional jurisdiction has been taken up by the Additional Commissioner after lapse of more than four years as there was no lis before him and even otherwise the suo-motu revisional

¶49

¶50

jurisdiction cannot be exercised after a lapse of period of four years as the said period cannot be said to be reasonable time for exercise of suo-motu revisional jurisdiction in the light of decision rendered by High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Ranveer Singh (supra).

¶51

9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Writ Petition is allowed and in consequence, impugned order dated 25.08.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Division Bilaspur, Bilaspur whereby cognizance has been taken is hereby quashed.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶54

Avinash

Jagdish Prasad Bansal v. Laxmin Bai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Prasad Bansal v. Laxmin Bai and Ors.

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

Dinesh Kumar Dhruv Vs Ultratech Cement Limited (Hirmi Cement Plant), Larson and Tubro Limited

Ganesh Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shri Kanak Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santoshi Vs Shakuntala Devi

Smt. Sukhmaniya Vs Vikas Kumar Paikara

Bhagbali Vs Hinchharam