Vijay Kumar Tiwari Vs Board Of Revenue

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Order reserved on 09.01.2024

¶4

Order delivered on 23.04.2024

¶5

WPC No. 717 of 2016

¶6

Vijay Kumar Tiwari S/o Vashishth Narayan Tiwari, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Bahinga, Tahsil Berala, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Handi Para Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - Board Of Revenue Through Its President, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh,

¶11

3 - Sub Divisional Officer, Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - (Deleted) Dwarika Prashad, Through his Legal Heirs As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 08-11-2023

¶13

4.1 - Santosh Kumar S/o Late Dwarika Prashad

¶14

4.2 - Satish Kumar S/o Late Dwarika Prashad

¶15

4.3 - Smt. Pushpa Tiwari D/o Late Dwarika Prashad

¶16

4.4 - Smt. Saroj Tiwari D/o Late Dwarika Prasad

¶17

5 - Sourabh Sharma, S/o Late Shri Mohan Lal Dubey, Aged About 35 Years

¶18

All R/o Village Bahinga, P.H. No.10, Tahsil Berala, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶19

----Respondents

¶20

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶21

For Petitioner : Shri Yogesh Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri Gagan Tiwari, Dy GA For Respondent-5 : Shri AK Prasad, Advocate

¶22

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal CAV Judgment

¶23

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 10-03-

¶24

2016 (Annexure P-8) passed by Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, in Case No. R.N./23/R/A-6/61/2016, whereby, the Board of

¶25

Wpc 717 of 2016

¶26

2

¶27

Revenue has dismissed the preliminary objection of the petitioner and has admitted the case for hearing. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following prayer:

¶28

“a. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly quash or set-aside the order dated 10-0316 (Annexure P-8) passed by Respondent No. 1/Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (C.G.) in the interest of justice and may kindly hold that the revision application preferred by the Respondent No. 4 & 5 is not maintainable in the interest of justice.

¶29

b. Any other writ or direction which the Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued.”

¶30

Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the Writ Petition are that the parties belong to a common ancestor Mohan Lal, who died on 25-052005. On 23-01-2006, the respondents-4 and 5 have filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Saja/Berla, District Drug, against the order dated 01-11-1996 passed by the Gram Panchayat, by which the land of Khasra. Nos. 419, 420, 428,429, 424/7 and 559/6, area 3.67 Acres, 0.19 Acres, 0.10 Acres, 0.81 Acres, 0.08 Acres, and 0.28 Acres respectively, have got mutated in name of the petitioner in the revenue records. The appeal was filed by the respondents- 4 and 5 along with the application of Section 5 of Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay in filing appeal was allowed by the SDO (Revenue), Saja/Berla, on 15-012008 and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur,

¶31

Wpc 717 of 2016

¶32

3

¶33

against the order passed by the SDO (Revenue), Saja/Berla, which was dismissed vide order dated 01-05-2012. Against the order passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, the petitioner has further challenged the order dated 01-05-2012 before the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, by filing a revision petition. The revision petition of the petitioner before the Board of Revenue has also been dismissed vide order dated 09-12-2015. The said order dated 09-12-2015 was challenged in the W.P. (C) No. 138/2016 before this court. The said W.P. (C) No. 138/2016 is also dismissed vide order dated 21-01-2016 and directed the SDO (Revenue), Saja/Berla, to decide the appeal preferred by the respondents-5 and 6 (present respondents- 4 and 5) on its own merits.

¶34

The SDO (Revenue), Saja/Berla, vide its order dated 10-02-2016, decided the appeal on merits and has dismissed the appeal filed by the respondents- 4 and 5. The respondents, without filing the second appeal provided under Section 44 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, directly approached before the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, by filing a Revision under Section 50 read with Section 42 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, and challenged the order dated 10-02-1016 passed by SDO.

¶35

In the revision application filed before the Board of Revenue, the petitioner has filed his preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the Revision application before the Board of Revenue by saying that the respondents- 4 and 5 are having alternative remedy of filing of the appeal

¶36

Wpc 717 of 2016

¶37

4

¶38

under Section 44(2) of the Land Revenue Code, and therefore, the revision application is not maintainable. After calling of the reply of the application from the opposite party, the Board of Revenue has decided the preliminary objection on 10-03-2016 and dismissed the same and further admitted the revision for hearing. The order dated 10-03-2016 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the revision application ought not to be admitted by the Board of Revenue, bypassing the statutory provision of Second Appeal provided under Section 44 (2) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959. He would further submits that the provisions of Section 50 (1)(i)(a) of the Land Revenue Code have not been considered by the Board of Revenue properly, which clearly bars the revision application. He would also submits that while deciding the preliminary objection of maintainability of the revision application on the ground of alternative remedy of statutory appeal, the Board of Revenue has considered the case on merits and has examined in detail. The Board of Revenue ought not to have entered into merits of the case and it confined only to the maintainability of the revision application. Considering the merits of the case in detail at the time of admission of the application, prejudiced the final outcome of the case and the same reflects predetermination. He would also submit that the entire merits of the case have been considered and nothing remains for final adjudication and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with and to be set-aside.

¶40

Wpc 717 of 2016

¶41

5

¶42

Although, the return has not been filed by the respondents- 4 and 5 in the case, yet the learned counsel was ready to argue the matter finally. Opposing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, he would argue that the Board of Revenue has absolutely justified in dismissing the preliminary objection filed by the petitioner, and admitting the case for hearing. While deciding the preliminary objection, merits of the case required to be considered to reach the conclusion. It is only the preliminary objection, decided and the petitioner is having ample opportunity to raise his contention at the time of final hearing of the case before the Board of Revenue. The case is still pending before the Board of Revenue for hearing and he can very well raise his submission before there. He would also submit that while deciding the preliminary objection and admitting the application for hearing, the Board of Revenue, in para 4 of its order dated 10-03-2016, taken the case as suo-moto revision and has admitted the same which is well within the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶43

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents submitted by the parties in the writ petition.

¶44

The challenge in the writ petition is that despite having the alternative remedy of filing Second Appeal provided under Section 44 (2) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, the Board of Revenue has

¶45

Wpc 717 of 2016

¶46

6

¶47

entertained the revision filed before it against the order passed by the SDO (Revenue), Saja/Berla, and dismissed the preliminary objection of the petitioner, and admitted the revision application for hearing. The Board of Revenue has considered the case as suo-moto revision against the order passed by the SDO (Revenue), Saja/Berla. In para 4 of its order dated 10-03-2016, the Board of Revenue observed as under;

¶48

Para 4---उपर ्यु क � ्त तमामव�ध ि �कप ि ्र ा��ानतथान ् र ्यु ाधर ि ्यु कद ृ ष ्ट ातक ं े आ�ारपर eS इसवनष ि कर ् ्ष� परपह �ं चताह ूं वककण ि !"का ्डि 3.1.1 ए� 3.1.2 म ें कीगर ्यु ीव�� ि चना े अन � सारप ं चार ्यु तद ्व ारा पाररतनामा ि तरणआद ं े श 01.11.1996 म ें पथमद ्र ृ षर ्ट ्यु ा Ä¨j अवनर ि ्यु वमतताअथ�ा ि अ� ै �ावनकतापर ि रलध ि 0तहोरहाह ि ै ए� ं अन � व�भागीअध ि �कारीद ि ाराइस ्व े नजरअ ं दाजकरत े ह � ए उक ्त आद े शकोव4नाकोईकार ि ण 4तार ्युे ण6थररखाह ्डि ै ।अतःऐस े आदशकोन े ् र ्यु ारव ्यु हतम ि ें �ारा 50 क े अ ं तर ग त 6�म े �पनरी0णम � ें स � न�ाईह े त � ग ्र ाह ्य वकर ि ्यु ाजानाउधचतहोगा। ि

¶49

From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Board of Revenue has considered the case on its own motion although an application for revision has been filed by the respondents- 4 and 5 but the Board of Revenue has the power to call for and examine the records of the subordinate authority for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and propriety of the order passed by its subordinate authority. It is necessary to reproduce the Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, here which is as under ;

¶50

50. Revision— The Board [or the Commissioner] [Inserted by Act No. 17 of 2008] 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

¶51

Wpc 717 of 2016

¶52

7

¶53

any case pending before, or disposed of by such officer, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it/he thinks fit :

¶54

Provided that—

¶55

(i)no application for revision shall be entertained-

¶56

(a)against an order appealable under this Code;(b)against an order of the Settlement Commissioner under Section 210;(c)against an order passed in revision by the [Commissioner or] [Inserted by Act No. 17 of 2008] the Settlement Commissioner in respect of cases under Section 170-B, nor shall any such order be revised by the Board on its own motion;

¶57

(ii)An application for revision against any order can be made within a period of 60 days 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;

¶58

(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.

¶59

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

¶60

(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] [Inserted by Act No. 17 of 2008] the Settlement Commissioner or the Collector or the Settlement Officer in respect thereof;

¶61

(ii) where proceedings in respect of any case have been commenced by the [Commissioner] [Inserted by Act No. 17 of 2008] the Settlement Commissioner under sub-section (1), no action shall be taken by the Collector or the Settlement Officer in respect thereof;

¶62

(iii) where proceedings in respect of any such case have been commenced by the [Commissioner] [Inserted by Act No. 17 of 2008], 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 [Commissioner] [Inserted by Act No. 17 of 2008] the Settlement

¶63

Wpc 717 of 2016

¶64

8

¶65

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;

¶66

(iv) where proceedings in respect of any such case have been commenced by the [the Commissioner or] [Inserted by Act No. 17 of 2008] the Settlement Officer under sub-section (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.

¶67

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

¶68

It is obvious that while considering the legality and propriety of the order passed by the subordinate authority, he has to satisfy himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, for which the Board of Revenue has considered the merits of the case and has prima-facie comes into conclusion that there is sufficient ground to call for the records of the subordinate authority to examine the records and has admitted the revision after dismissing the preliminary objection of the petitioner. If, the Board of Revenue would have admitted the application of respondents- 4 and 5, which is directly filed before him bypassing the provisions of Section 44(2) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, then they may have a case to interfere with the impugned order. Here, the Board of Revenue has taken as suo-moto revision and admit the case for hearing. The proceeding is still pending, the merits of the case yet to be decided on its own strength, and the petitioner has every right to defend his case there.

¶69

Wpc 717 of 2016

¶70

9

¶71

After having an elaborate discussion of the facts of the case as well as various pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts, the Board of Revenue comes to conclusion and has admitted the revision on its own motion and has dismissed the preliminary objection and fixed the case for hearing, which cannot be said to be either perverse or illegal.

¶72

The petitioner does not make out any good ground to interfere with the impugned order and in the result, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶73

The revision petition is pending before the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, since 2016, therefore, it is directed that the same be decided within 03 months from the next date of hearing of the present case before the Board of Revenue or from the date of production of certified copy of this order before it, whichever is earlier. The Board of Revenue is further directed to decide the revision petition on its own merits after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without being influenced by observation made in the impugned order dated 10-03-2016 or by this court.

¶74

14. No order as to costs.

¶75

Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶76

padma

Vijay Kumar Tiwari v. Board Of Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Tiwari v. Board Of Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogendra @ Jugnu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mahesh Kumar Dhurandhar Vs Alok Sharma

Balram Bhagat Panda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yadumani Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Brijlal Korram Vs Meraj

Pradeep Bhuiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh