Rewaram Dewangan Vs Janakram Dhruv

1 - Janakram Dhruv S/o Abheram Dhruv Aged About 58 Years R/o Majarkatta, Tahsil And District Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gariyaband, Tahsil And District Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

	... Respondents
For Appellant	: Mr.H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.Preeti Yadav, Advocate
For Respondent	: Mr.Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate
No.1
Respondent	: Mr.Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional
No.2/State	Advocate General

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶15

05.02.2025

¶16

Heard Mr.H.B.Agrawal, leaned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.Preeti Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant as well as

¶17

2

¶18

Mr.Rajnish Singh Baghel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr.Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent No.2/State.

¶19

The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No.1539 of 2019 by which learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.

¶20

Facts of the case are that the appellant has challenged the maintainability of action against him under Section 170-B of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘Code’), which was started by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gariyaband vide Annexure P-1. It is not in dispute that as per Annexure P-2, parties are Mishri Lal and Janakram Dhruv, therefore, it is necessary to start proceedings under Section 170-B of the Code that one of the party entering into sale must be aboriginal tribe, but in this case both are not aboriginal tribe, therefore, provisions contained in Section 170-B of the Code are not attracted.

¶21

In this case, it is not in dispute that vide Annexure P-6, the suit land was purchased by Shri Guharam, son of Laxmi Nath Dewangan from Shri Negi Gond, son of Amar Singh Gond, vide registered sale deed, therefore in earlier occasion case under Section 170-B of the M.P. Land Revenue Code was started and reversion order was passed, which was not executed either by Negi or his legal heirs, therefore the possession of the suit land

¶22

3

¶23

continued with the appellant for last about 40 to 60 years.

¶24

As per provision of Section 170-B (2-A) and (3) of the Code, the land was not restored, then by misrepresenting the same, the suit land could have not been sold by Mishri Lal, as was done vide Annexure P-2, in which he accepts taking possession of the suit land and likewise at page 32 of the writ petition further vide consent letter for mutation, the respondent has acknowledged receipt of possession, which is part of sale deed Exhibit P-2 which was not seen by learned Single Judge for directing delivery of possession of the suit land to the petitioner/appellant, therefore, the order of learned Single Judge is illegal. Respondent No. 1 has not purchased the right to execute possession as actionable claim in sale deed, therefore action of respondent No. 1 against the appellant for recovery of possession was not maintainable. Otherwise also, no cause of action arose in favor of respondent No. 1 for initiation of proceedings under Section 170-B of the Code as per Annexure P-1 for recovery of possession because in earlier case, recovery of possession was directed in favor of Negi, but neither Negi nor his legal representatives could get possession of the suit land within time as per Section 170-B (2-A) and (3) of the Code within time prescribed therein, therefore second action of Section 170-B of the Code was liable to be quashed, which was overlooked by learned Single Judge. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Gariyaband has also committed an error in starting new case of Section 170-B of the Code vide Annexure P-1

¶25

4

¶26

against the appellant, particularly when there was no cause of action against the appellant as per Annexure P-2 and earlier order of reversal of possession of land to the earlier seller Negi within prescribed time as per Section 170-B (2-A) and (3) of the Code. Therefore, in the garb of new proceedings under Section 170-B of the Code, no possession of the appellant can be taken, as was done by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gariyaband.

¶27

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the case under Section 170-B of the Code was started by Negi against Guha Ram Dewangan, which was though decided in favour of Negi, the legal representatives could not get possession within specified period, as mentioned in Section 170-B (2-A) and (3) of the Code, then possession of the appellant in the suit land whether can be reverted back or recovered, which is time barred and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gariyaband was not an Executing Authority by against starting a case under Section 170-B of the Code, which is barred by principles of res-judicata. He further submits that Annexure P-2 between Mishri Lal and respondent Janakram Dhruv and the appellant is not a party to the sale deed, whether any cause of action ever arose in favour of respondent for recovery of possession under Section 170-B of the Code. He also submits that the possession has already been given to the respondent by seller Mishri Lal as clear from sale deed and consent letter of mutation thereof under Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, whether the right of purchaser i.e. respondent in

¶28

5

¶29

case of grievance for non receipt of possession from seller will give right an action for bringing suit for possession against seller Mishri Lal as per Annexure P-2, therefore also, second application under Section 170-B of the Code against the appellant was not maintainable, hence the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) dated 23.05.2016, the order dated 07.02.2019 passed by the Collector and the order dated 23.08.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur are liable to be set aside including the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 13.12.2024 in WPC No.1539 of 2019.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that learned Single Judge considering all the aspects of the matter has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, which warrants no interference by this Court.

¶31

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

¶32

From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge has held that Section 170-B of the Code has been enacted with a laudable object to protect the interest of the weaker sections and reversion of land to the members of aboriginal tribe, which was transferred by fraud. Learned Single

¶33

6

¶34

Judge has further held that admittedly, the appellant’s father had purchased the subject property long back from Negi Gond S/o Amar Singh Gond for a consideration of Rs. 100/- and son of Negi Gond namely Son Sai Gond initiated a proceeding in terms of Section 170-B of the Code, wherein, after a due enquiry, an order has been passed against the father of the appellant on 30.8.1993. Learned Single Judge also held that it is manifest that the said order has attained finality and the present appellant, only on the ground that the earlier order has not been executed during the lifetime of Son Sai Gond, has been continuing in possession of the subject property in spite of the fact that the same has been sold by the legal heirs of late Son Sai Gond in favour of respondent No.1. Ensuingly, when respondent No.1 tried to get possession of the subject property, such objection has been raised, however, when the Revenue Authority did not pass any order in his favour and his objection was overturned, the appellant challenged the said orders in writ petition and considering the grounds raised in writ petition and also considering the scope of Section 170-B of the Code and the mischief for remedy of which the enactment has been made, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

¶35

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for parties, perusing the pleadings made in writ petition as also in writ appeal and also considering the findings recorded by learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, learned Single Judge has not

¶36

7

¶37

committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court.

¶38