Manmati And Ors. Vs Bhajju Ram And Ors.

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:16445

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 423 of 2015

¶6

1 - Manmati W/o Late Shiv Lal Gond Aged About 45 Years R/o Village REKHA Digitallysigned by SINGH REKHASINGHChemi @ Chamanpur, Tahsil Ramanujganj, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Raj Kumar S/o Late Shiv Lal Gond Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Chemi @ Chamanpur, Tahsil Ramanujganj, Distt Sarguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶8

3 - Dil Kumar S/o Late Shiv Lal Gond, Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Mother Petioner No.1 Manmati W/o Late Shiv Lal Gind, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Chemi @ Chamanpur, Tahsil Ramanujganj, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶9

4 - Ram Chandra S/o Godhu Gond R/o Village Chemi @ Chamanpur, Tahsil Ramanujganj, Distt Sarguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶10

5 - Sukhdev S/o Godhu Gond R/o Village Chemi @ Chamanpur, Tahsil Ramanujganj, Distt Sarguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Petitioner(s)

¶12

versus

¶13

1 - Bhajju Ram S/o Ghasi Gond R/o Village Chemi @ Chamanpur, Tahsil Ramanujganj, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶14

2 - Dinesh S/o Bhajju Gond R/o Village Chemi @ Chamanpur, Tahsil Ramanujganj, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶15

3 - Kum Mina D/o Bhajju Gond R/o Village Chemi @ Chamanpur, Tahsil Ramanujganj, Distt Sarguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶16

4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

---- Respondents

¶18

-2-

¶19

For petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, PL For respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶21

08.04.2025

¶22

The petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the Board of Revenue and the Commissioner, Division, Surguja dated 28.01.2012 & 12.05.2015 whereby the appeal and revision preferred by the petitioners have been dismissed.

¶23

The facts of the present case are that the petitioners purchased a total of 19 Survey numbers total area of 11.40 acres situated at Village Chemi @ Chamanpur, Tehsil Ramanujganj, District Surguja (C.G.) from one Budhni Bai through an unregistered sale deed dated 01.04.1966 in consideration of Rs.500/-. An application for mutation was moved by the petitioners and it was allowed by the authority on 03.05.1966. The order of mutation was challenged by one late Smt. Hiremen Bai, who is the mother of respondents No.1 to 3 in the year 2000 before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The SubDivisional Officer vide order dated 20.02.2003 dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondents. A second appeal was preferred before the Commissioner and it was allowed vide order dated 28.01.2012 on the ground that the authority concerned failed to follow the provisions of Sections 109 & 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code of 1959’) while passing the order of mutation in favour of the petitioners. It is also

¶24

3

¶25

held that no notice was issued to the land owner and no opportunity of hearing was afforded. The order passed by the Commissioner was challenged by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue and it was dismissed vide order dated 12.05.2015. The petitioners have challenged both orders by filing this petition.

¶26

Mr. Patel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners had purchased the subject property through an unregistered sale deed on 01.04.1966 in consideration of Rs.500/- and the possession was also handed over. He would further submit that the order of mutation was passed by the competent Revenue Authority on 03.05.1966. He would contend that after 34 years, the mother of respondents No.1 to 3 preferred an appeal challenging therein the order of mutation before the Sub-Divisional Officer. He would further contend that the appeal was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and thereafter, the Commissioner allowed the second appeal preferred by respondents No.1 to 3. He would also submit that if respondents No.1 to 3 are aggrieved with the possession or the order of mutation in favour of the petitioners, they should assail the unregistered sale deed and possession of the petitioners by filing a competent civil suit and there was no occasion for the respondents No.1 to 3 to challenge the order of mutation after a lapse of 34 years without assigning the delay. He would pray to set aside the order passed by the Board of Revenue.

¶27

On the other hand, Mr. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 would oppose the submissions made by Mr.

¶28

-4-

¶29

Patel. He would submit that the order of mutation was passed without following the procedure contemplated under Sections 109 & 110 of the Code of 1959. He would further submit that no notice was issued to the land owner by the said revenue authority. He would also submit that the late Smt. Hiremen Bai was the adopted daughter of Budhni Bai and when she came to know about the order of mutation in the year 2001, she challenged it by filing an appeal. He would further contend that the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue have concurrently held that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice and a breach of the procedure contemplated under Sections 109 & 110 of the Code of 1959. He would lastly submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶30

Mr. Agrawal, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the order passed by the Board of Revenue.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

¶32

Late Budhni Bai sold her property through an unregistered sale deed dated 01.04.1966 to the petitioners and possession was also handed over. The petitioners moved an application for the mutation before the competent authority and an order was passed on 03.05.1966 in their favor. During her lifetime, Budhni Bai never raised any objection against the order of mutation.

¶33

After 34 years, the adopted daughter of Budhni Bai preferred an appeal against the order of mutation before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the appeal vide order

¶34

5

¶35

dated 20.02.2003 on the ground that the appeal was preferred at a belated stage without explaining the delay. The Commissioner set aside the findings recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the grounds that the procedure for mutation was not followed and the opportunity of hearing was not given to the land owner. The Board of Revenue affirmed the findings recorded by the Commissioner.

¶36

Late Smt. Hiremen Bai could not adduce evidence to establish the fact that she was the adopted daughter of Budhni Bai and she has the right to challenge the order of mutation as during her lifetime, Budhni Bai never challenged the order of mutation passed in favour of the petitioners.

¶37

10.Late Smt. Hiremen Bai also failed to explain the delay of 34 years in filing the appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer wherein the order of mutation was challenged.

¶38

11.The Commissioner without considering these aspects set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Board of Revenue also affirmed it.

¶39

12.When the appeal preferred by late Smt. Hiremen Bai, the mother of respondents No.1 to 3, was not competent before the SubDivisional Officer, there was no occasion for the Commissioner or Board of Revenue to examine the procedural part.

¶40

13.Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, the orders passed by the Commissioner and Board of Revenue dated 28.01.2012 and 12.05.2015 are not sustainable in the eyes of the law and the same are hereby set aside and the

¶41

-6-

¶42

order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) dated 20.02.2003 is hereby restored. Respondents No.1 to 3 would be at liberty to take recourse to law.

¶43

14.In view of the above, the petition is allowed .

¶44

15.No order as to cost(s).

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶47

Rekha

Manmati And Ors. v. Bhajju Ram And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manmati And Ors. v. Bhajju Ram And Ors.

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

Dr.Deepak Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Saraswati Chouhan Vs Union Of India and Ors.

Tribhuvan Prasad Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Central Govt.employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.durg Vs Housing And Urban Development Corporation Limited And Anr.

Jaideep Makan Vs Chairman, Municipal Council Kirandul

Jaideep Makan Vs Chairman, Municipal Council, Kirandul