Co-Operative Marketing Society Maryadit Vs Board of Revenue

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:8060

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP No. 5283 of 2006

¶6

Co-Operative Marketing Society Maryadit Through Its Manager P.R. Rathore, S/o Shiv Dayal Rathore, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Purani Basti, Kharsia, District Raigarh , Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Through Its Chairman, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Collector District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Additional Collector, Raigarh District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Sub Divisional Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶13

Ram Kunwar (Since Deceased), D/o Late Chain Singh Kunwar, Through Her Following Legal Representatives -

¶14

5.1 - (A). Kanhaiyalal (Dead) Through Lrs. S/o Dharam Singh Nil

¶15

5.1.1 - (A). Smt. Janki Bai Wd/o Kanhaiyalal Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Tundri, Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶16

5.1.2 - (B). Smt. Dorimati Rathia W/o Bhawar Singh Aged About 40 Years D/o Kanhaiyalal, R/o Village Binjkot, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶17

5.1.3 - (C). Smt. Ujjalmati Rathia W/o Tikaram Aged About 38 Years D/o Kanhaiyalal, R/o Village Kanshichuwa, Police Station Bhupdevpur, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgar

¶18

Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH YADAV YADAV Date: 2025.02.25 15:19:48 +0530

¶19

2

¶20

5.1.4 - (D). Anuj Singh S/o Kanhaiyalal Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Tundri, Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶21

5.1.5 - (E). Smt. Jamuna Bai Rathia W/o Jaikumar Aged About 33 Years D/o Kanhaiyalal, R/o Saraipali, Tahsil And Police Station Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶22

5.1.6 - (F). Smt. Shakuntala Rathia W/o Hari Lal Aged About 30 Years D/o Kanhaiyalal, R/o Village Akashmar, Police Station And Tahsil Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶23

5.1.7 - (G). Smt. Duleshwari Rathia W/o Padmalochan Aged About 28 Years D/o Kanhaiyalal, R/o Village Behramuda, Police Station Chhal, Tahsil Katghora, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶24

5.2 - (B). Parsuram S/o Dharam Singh R/o Village Turri, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh

¶25

5.3 - (C). Guruvari D/o Dharam Singh R/o Village Turri, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh

¶26

5.4 - (D). Urmila Bai D/o Dharam Singh R/o Village Turri, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh

¶27

Naanhi Dai D/o Late Chain Singh Kunwar R/o Village Anjoripali, Tehsil Kharsia, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶28

... Respondent(s)

¶29

For Petitioner	: Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Aman Tamboli, Panel Lawyer
For Respondents 5A to 5D and 6	Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate

¶30

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board

¶31

14.02.2025

¶32

The petitioner Co-Operative Marketing Society has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 22.07.2005 (Annexure - P/22) passed by the Board of

¶33

3

¶34

Revenue, Chhattisgarh in Revision Case No. 48/A-23/2003-04 in case of Ramkunwar and others vs. Manager, Co-operative Marketing Society Kharsia, District - Raigarh (C.G.). The Board of Revenue vide impugned order dated 22.07.2005 (Annexure P/20) has quashed the order of Additional Collector Raigarh dated 12.03.1999 and remitted the matter to the Collector Raigarh for initiating suo moto review under Section 32 and 51 of Land Revenue Code, but has also directed that since the land in question belongs to tribal, therefore, its possession should be handed over to the respondents No. 5 and 6.

¶35

Brief facts as reflected from the records are that the respondent No. 5 and 6 have filed an application under Section 170(B) of the Land Revenue Code before the Sub-Divisional Officer Kharsia alleging that the land situated at village Anjoripali Patwari Halka No. 11, Tehsil Kharsia, Khasra No. 193/2 area 0.178 hectare and Khasra No. 210/3 area 1.137 hectare total area 1.315 hectare was recorded in the name of their parents Manki S/o Jalsingh who are by caste - Kanwar which is an aboriginal tribe. The said land has been fraudulently recorded in the name of the petitioner Federation. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) vide order dated 23.05.1997 passed the order and the said land was returned back to the original tribe Manki S/o Baidnath Singh Kanwar.

¶36

Being aggrieved with this order, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the Collector and the learned Collector after hearing the parties has affirmed the order, thereafter, they have preferred a review petition wherein it has been contended that before purchase of the property permission of the Collector was obtained and therefore, review was sought which was considered and allowed by

¶37

4

¶38

setting aside its earlier order as well as the order dated 23.05.1997 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kharsia.

¶39

The Collector has also directed to conduct the inquiry with regard to ascertaining the veracity of permission granted to the Federation in accordance with law. Thereafter, Sub-Divisional Officer in pursuance of remand order has conducted the inquiry and it has recorded its finding on 28.09.1998 that the permission was granted and it has recorded its satisfaction in allowing the sale of the land in question. Accordingly, he closed the proceeding under Section 170(B) of Land Revenue Code, 1959 against the Federation.

¶40

The respondents have preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Collector Raigarh which is registered as Appeal No. 7/A23/98-99 against the order dated 28.09.1998. The learned Additional Collector has dismissed the appeal against the order dated 28.09.1998 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kharsia vide its order dated 12.03.1999.

¶41

Being aggrieved with this order, private respondents have preferred revision before the learned Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, the learned Board of Revenue vide impugned order dated 22.07.2005 has allowed the revision filed by the private respondents and remanded the matter with a direction to grant opportunity of hearing to the parties. The learned Board of Revenue has also directed that since the land pertains to the aboriginal tribe, therefore, the possession should be given to the private respondents within 2 months. Being aggrieved with this order of remand, the Co-operative marketing society has preferred a writ petition before this Court.

¶42

5

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Board of Revenue though it has remanded the matter, but has committed illegality in directing them to hand over the possession within 2 months as unless and until the very issue of violation of Section 170(B) of Land Revenue Code is decided by the competent court i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer as per the Land Revenue Code, then only this order could have been passed. In fact by this order, the learned Board of Revenue has granted final relief to them without adjudication of the claim by the competent forum, thus he would pray for quashing of the order.

¶44

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the aforesaid submission would submit that the order of remand and further direction to handover the land to the private respondents as they are original owners of the land is legal and justified. Learned counsel for the private respondents would support the impugned order and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶45

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition with utmost satisfaction.

¶46

From the perusal of the impugned order and the records annexed with the writ petition, it is quite vivid that the learned Board of Revenue has recorded its finding that there is procedure lapses for conducting the proceedings under Section 170 of Land Revenue Code, as the Sub-Divisional Officer without considering the provisions has mechanically held that alleged permission was granted in favour of the petitioner. The learned Board of Revenue has also recorded its finding that if the procedure prescribed under the statute is not followed then it is an illegal order. The learned

¶47

6

¶48

Board of Revenue in its order has also recorded its finding that both the trial Courts had drawn wrong conclusion and also taken into consideration that in the revenue matters the State is necessary party, yet the State has not been made party to the case, still the proceedings have been concluded which is illegality. The learned Board of Revenue has also recorded its finding that on 07.07.1965 in a short period of one day, permission to sell was granted without conducting any inquiry which is required to ascertain whether the sale of the land belongs to tribal is necessary or not and also recorded its finding that the Additional Collector in its impugned order dated 12.03.1999, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) in its order dated 28.09.1998 has passed the order without considering the provisions of law and the facts, accordingly, it has remanded the matter. Thus, so far as order of remand is concerned, the learned Board of Revenue has committed illegality or perversity which warrants interference, thus, the order of remand is held to be legal and justified.

¶49

So far as further direction of the Board of Revenue that the land should be given to the private respondents within 2 months while passing this order, the Board of Revenue has exceeded its jurisdiction as unless and until the entitlement of the respondents is declared by the competent forum i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer while conducting the proceedings under Section 170(B) of Land Revenue Code, 1959, no such direction for handing over the possession could have been passed by the Board of Revenue. As such, the impugned order so far as remand is concerned, it cannot be said to suffer from perversity and illegality which warrants interference, but so far as the

¶50

7

¶51

other directions to hand over possession of land in question to the private respondents within 2 months is beyond jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Section 170(B) of Land Revenue Code, therefore, I am of the view that the direction to hand over the possession of the land to the private respondents within 2 months is illegal and deserves to be quashed.

¶52

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part and the matter is remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Officer to conduct the proceedings under Section 170 of Land Revenue Code within an outer limit of 8 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is also directed that the record of the Sub-Divisional Officer Kharsia which has been requisited by this Court on 03.05.2018 shall be returned back expeditiously to the office of Sub-Divisional Officer Raigarh for deciding the issue in accordance with law. It is also directed that this Court vide its order dated 13.11.2006 has granted the interim stay, the same shall continue till the case is decided by Sub-Divisional Officer within outer limit of 8 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The possession and right over the land will be dependable on the final outcome of the proceedings pending under Section 170(B) of the Land Revenue Code before the SubDivisional Officer Kharsia.

¶53

Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶54

Manishs

Co-Operative Marketing Society Maryadit v. Board of Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Co-Operative Marketing Society Maryadit 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

M/s Ferro Concrete Construction i Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sona Raksel Vs Smt. Krishna Khatik

Juli Bhansali Vs Sanjay Singhi

Ram Prasad Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rashmita Patel Vs Vivekanand Patel

Veer Kotadiya Vs Sunil Kotadiya