Allowed

Sunil Tawari v. Janak Ram Kurre

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jul 2025WP227/914/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions concerning revenue records of land at Telibandha. The court set aside the Board of Revenue's order that had reversed restoration of the petitioner's mutation entries based on unchallenged registered sale deeds, restored the Additional Commissioner's order, and held the Board lacked jurisdiction to revise orders passed under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions allowed; Board of Revenue orders dated 03.10.2015 and 24.09.2018 set aside; Additional Commissioner's order restored; liberty to claim compensation for acquired Survey No. 224/1.

Sunil Tawari Vs Janak Ram Kurre — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.07.23 11:08:21 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:31819 NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP(227) No. 914 of 2015

¶6

Sunil Tawari S/o Shri S. N. Tawari, Aged About 48 Years Through The Power Of Attorney S. N. Tawari, S/o Late Jouhar Mal Tawari, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Jal Vihar Colony, Telibandha, P. S. Civil Line, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

--- Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - Janak Ram Kurre S/o Gannu Kurre, Through The Power Of Attorney Bharat Kurre S/o Janak Ram Kurre, R/o Satnami Para, Sati Vill, P. S. Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

--- Respondents

¶12

And

¶13

WPC No. 3179 of 2018

¶14

Sunil Taori S/o Shri S. N. Taori Aged About 51 Years Jal Vihar Colony, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Through The Power Of Attorney S.N. Taori, S/o Late Jouhar Mal Taori, Aged About 78 Years, R/o P-222, Parthivi Pacific, Tatabandh, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

--- Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

1 - Janak Ram Kurre S/o Rambhu R/o Telibandha Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Through The Power Of Attorney Bharat Kurre S/o Janak Ram Kurre, R/o Telibandha, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh........(Defendants)

¶19

	---Respondents
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1	: Mr. RoopNaik, Advocate

¶20

¶21

For Respondent No. 2 Mr. Ms. Shailja Shukla, : Deputy Government Advocate

¶22

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶23

Order on Board

¶24

09/07/2025

¶25

1. As the facts and issues involved in both the petitions arise from the same subject land between the same parties, both matters are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶26

2. The facts of the case are as under:-

¶27

A) Survey No. 224, ad-measuring 0.652 hectares of land situated at Village Telibandha, Patwari Circle No. 113/44, Tehsil and District Raipur, was initially recorded in the name of one Sukhram. The Family Tree of Sukhram is depicted herein

¶28

below:-

¶29

Sukhram I Budhram I Jannu ----------------------------------------------------------------------I I I I Balak Das Kisan Das Balki Bai Manki Bai (Son) (Son) (Daughter) (Daughter)

¶30

Respondent No. 1, Janak Ram Kurre, has claimed the right over part of the subject property on the ground that he is the legal descendant of Sukhram. In the first case, the name of his father is Gannu, whereas in the other case, it is Rambhu.

¶31

B) 0.194 hectare of land out of 0.652 hectare of Survey No. 224

¶32

was acquired by the State for the construction of a bypass road. The said part was entered as Survey No. 224 in the revenue record, the remaining land 0.484 became 224/2, and it remained

¶33

¶34

in the name of Jannu S/o Budhram.

¶35

C) Jannu, during his lifetime, partitioned 0.484 hectares of land, and thus Manki Bai, his daughter, got 0.202 hectares of land out of 0.484 hectares. The said plot was entered as Survey No. 224/3 in the revenue records. The remaining area of 0.256 hectares remained in the name of Jannu. On 01.12.1987, Survey No. 224/2 area 0.256 hectare was mutated in the name of the remaining children of Jannu vide mutation No. 145.

¶36

D) In the year 1989, Manik Bai D/o Jannu sold 0.101 hectares of land out of 0.202 hectares of land to Parmanand through a registered sale deed. The said part of the land was entered as Survey No. 224/4 in the revenue records. An order of mutation was also passed in favour of Parmanand. The remaining part of the land, i.e. 0.101 hectares, remained in the name of Manki Bai. Parmanand sold the purchased land bearing Survey No. 224/4 admeasuring 0.101 hectare to the petitioner, namely Sunil Tawari, through a registered sale deed in the year 1989 itself. The order of mutation was also passed, and the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records.

¶37

E) Jannu sold 0.101 hectare out of 0.256 hectare of Survey No. 224/2 to one Mulchand, and the order of mutation was also passed. He further sold 0.069 hectare of land to one Nandlal. Nandlal sold 0.069 hectare of land to the petitioner through a registered sale deed dated 12.11.1989, and the said plot was entered in the name of the petitioner in the revenue records.

¶38

F) Jannu and Manki Bai sold the remaining part of the land to different individuals through registered sale deeds.

¶39

¶40

G) Till 1991, the name of the petitioner was maintained as the owner and title holder of Survey No. 224/4 admeasuring 0.101 hectare and Survey No. 224/7 admeasuring 0.069 hectare in the revenue record. Thereafter, the revenue records were not properly maintained by the Revenue Department, and despite the acquisition of 0.194 hectare of land of Survey No. 224/1, it remained in the name of Budhram in the revenue records of 1989.

¶41

H) The plot of the petitioner bearing Survey No. 224/4 admeasuring 0.101 hectare was reduced to 0.069 hectare in the revenue records. The area of Survey No. 224/7 was changed from 0.069 hectare to 0.093 hectare, and it was entered in the name of Navbharat Fuse Company.

¶42

I) The petitioner moved an application before the Tehsildar for the correction of revenue records as the land Survey No. 224/7 was recorded in the name of Navbharat Fuse, and the area of both Survey Nos. 224/4 and 224/7 were changed. The Tehsildar vide order dated 14.06.2011 rejected the application. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), and it was also dismissed vide order dated 17.10.2011. The petitioner preferred a Second Appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur, and it was allowed vide order dated 02.11.2012, and the Revenue Authorities were directed to restore the revenue entries pursuant to the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner.

¶43

J) Respondent No. 1 preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue against the order passed by the Additional

¶44

¶45

Commissioner dated 02.12.2011. The learned Board of Revenue, on the impression that respondent No.1, Janak Ram, is the brother of Manki Bai and son of Jannu, allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.10.2015 by filing WP(227) No. 914/2015. An interim order was passed in his favour vide order dated 22.03.2016 to the effect that the orders and proceedings which have been challenged shall not be treated as final and shall remain subject to the final order passed in this writ petition.

¶46

K) During the pendency of these proceedings, Survey No. 224/1 admeasuring 0.194 hectare got vested with the State according to the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘Act of 1976’). One Munna Sahu moved an application before the Competent Authority to release the land. The Competent Authority vide order dated 27.03.2003 allowed the application and issued a direction to revert the land to Munna Sahu. The final order dated 27.3.2003 was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 33 of the Act of 1976 and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1987 (for short ‘Act of 1987’) before the Additional Commissioner Raipur. The Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, passed the order dated 16.12.2015 directing the parties to maintain the status quo.

¶47

L) Respondent No. 1 challenged the order dated 16.12.2015 by filing WPC No. 214/2016. Respondent No. 1 moved an application under Section 10 of CPC to stay the proceeding as

¶48

¶49

same matter is already pending before the another Court. Commissioner, Raipur Division vide order dated 16.03.2016 deffered the hearing of case till disposal of WP(227) No. 914/2015.

¶50

M) Respondent No.1 challenged the order dated 16.03.2016 by filing a revision before the Board of Revenue, and it was dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2017 for want of jurisdiction as the order passed under the Act of 1976 was challenged. WPC No. 214/2016 filed by respondent No. 1 was withdrawn with the liberty to prefer a review petition before the Board of Revenue, and thereafter, a review application was moved before the Board of Revenue for the recall of the order dated 27.02.2017. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 24.09.2018 allowed the review application and admitted the revision petition filed by respondent No.1 for hearing and called the records of the Courts below. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.09.2018 by filing WPC No. 3179/2018.

¶51

3. Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner had purchased Survey No. 224/4 admeasuring 0.101 hectare from Parmanand in the year 1989, and an order of mutation was also passed. He would contend that Parmanand had purchased Survey No. 224/4 admeasuring 0.101 hectare from Jannu. It is contended that in the revenue records, the name of the petitioner was entered, and there was no dispute with regard to the title or possession of the petitioner. He would further submit that Survey No. 224/7 admeasuring 0.069 was purchased by the petitioner from Nandlal through a registered sale deed dated 12.11.1989, and

¶52

¶53

the order of mutation was passed in his favour. He would also submit that Nandlal had purchased the said plot from Jannu through a registered sale deed. He would contend that the Revenue Authorities failed to maintain the revenue records properly and therefore, the area of Survey No. 224/4 was reduced from 0.101 hectare to 0.069 hectare, whereas Survey No. 224/7 was recorded in the name of Navbharat Fuse. He would further contend that the learned Additional Commissioner vide order dated 02.12.2011 allowed the second appeal preferred by the petitioner and issued directions to the Revenue Authorities to rectify the revenue entries and orders passed by the Tehsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) were set aside. He would argue that the Board of Revenue failed to consider the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner by Parmanand and Nandlal. He would further argue that the learned Board of Revenue also failed to consider the revenue records like Khasra, B1, Panchsala and sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner, and therefore, the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 03.10.2015 is bad in law. He would also argue that Survey No. 224/1 admeasuring 0.194 hectare was acquired by the State for the construction of a bypass road and the remaining land of Survey No. 224 was sold by Jannu and Manki Bai to various individuals, therefore, there was no occasion for the Board of Revenue to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division. He would pray to set aside the order dated 03.10.2015.

¶54

4. With regard to the order passed by the Board of Revenue in the review petition dated 24.09.2018, Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan would submit that the total land 36224 sq. m., along with other lands, got merged with

¶55

¶56

the State according to the provisions of the Act of 1976 and a draft statement was issued on 09.01.1984. The Competent Authority had passed an order on 25.02.1991 in this regard. He would contend that Survey No. 224/1 admeasuring 1940 sq.m., which was acquired by the State for the construction of the bypass road, got vested with the State according to the Act of 1976. The final order was passed by the Competent Authority on 23.12.1991, and a Notification under Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976 was also issued. He would further contend that after the repeal of the Act of 1976 and the enactment of the Act of 1999, as the lands were not in possession of the State, the order was passed on 27.03.2003 by the Competent Authority to revert the lands. Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan would argue that an appeal was preferred against the said order before the Appellate Authority and an order was passed to maintain status quo and the proceedings of the appeal under the Act of 1976 were differed till the next date of hearing. He would further argue that the Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction to entertain a revision against the order passed under the provisions of the Act of 1976. He would also argue that the Additional Commissioner has been notified as the Appellate Authority under the Act of 1976. He would state that the Board of Revenue has exercised the powers conferred under Section 8 of the CG Land Revenue Code, 1959, while allowing the review application, but the provisions of Section 8 do not confer the power to the Board of Revenue to upset any order passed in proceedings initiated under any other enactments. He would contend that earlier, the revision preferred by respondent No.1 was dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, but vide order dated 24.09.2018, the Board of Revenue allowed the review petition,

¶57

¶58

recalled its earlier order and admitted the revision preferred by respondent No. 1 for hearing, which is per se illegal.

¶59

5. On the other hand, Mr. Roop Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, would not dispute the factual description of both petitions. He would fairly submit that the land bearing Survey No. 224/1 admeasuring 0.194 was acquired by the State for the construction of a bypass road, but the compensation has not been paid yet. He would contend that initially, an order under the Act of 1976 was passed and the land got vested with the State under the Act of 1976, but later on, the said order was set aside and a direction was issued to revert the land to its original owners. He would also submit that as the right of respondent No.1 enshrined in Article 300A of the Constitution of India has been infringed, liberty may be granted to move a suitable application claiming therein compensation.

¶60

6. Ms. Shailja Shukla, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for State/respondent No. 2, would submit that there was a dispute with regard to the entries made in revenue records; therefore, the Board of Revenue affirmed the order passed by the Tehsildar and SubDivisional Officer (Revenue). She would further submit that the petitioner ought to have filed a civil suit claiming therein the right over Survey Nos. 224/4 and 224/7. It is also argued that there are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided in the writ petition. She would also submit that the three Revenue Authorities, i.e. Tehsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Board of Revenue, have recorded findings against the petitioner; therefore, WP(227) No. 914/2015 is liable to be dismissed.

¶61

7. With regard to WPC No. 3179/2018, Ms. Shailja Shukla would argue

¶62

¶63

that the Board of Revenue, exercising the power under Section 8 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959, may examine the legality or propriety of any order passed by the subordinate revenue authorities. She would further submit that an order of vesting of land was passed by the Competent Authority under the Act of 1976, and against the said order, an application was moved by one Munna Sahu, which was allowed, and a direction was issued to revert the land to its original owner. She would contend that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner according to the provisions of Section 33 of the Act of 1976, but the proceedings were deferred on account of the pendency of WP(227) No. 914/2015. She would also contend that though the revision preferred by respondent No.1 was initially dismissed on account of the lack of jurisdiction, later on, the review petition was allowed, and the revision petition has been admitted for hearing. She would contend that the petition filed by the petitioner may be dismissed.

¶64

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on the record with utmost circumspection.

¶65

9. In these petitions, respondent No. 1, who is the main contesting party, has not opposed relief(s) sought by the petitioner in both petitions, and he has sought the liberty to approach the Competent Authority claiming therein compensation for the acquisition of Survey No. 224/1 admeasuring 0.194 hectare, which was acquired for the construction of a bypass road.

¶66

10. The facts and documents annexed along with WP(227) No. 914/2015 would show that the petitioner purchased two plots bearing Survey Nos 224/4 and 224/7 from Parmanand and Nandlal through registered

¶67

¶68

sale deeds. The validity and genuineness of the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner have not been challenged by any person. The sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner have the legal sanctity. Initially, those plots were purchased by Parmanand and Nandlal from Jannu, and they sold those plots to the petitioner. The name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records. It appears that the Revenue Department failed to maintain the revenue records properly, and the area of Survey No. 224/4 was reduced from 0.101 hectare to 0.069 hectare, and Survey No. 224/7 was recorded in the name of Navbharat Fuse. The area of Survey No. 224/7 was changed from 0.069 hectare to 0.093 hectare. The petitioner produced the relevant documents, including sale deeds, before the Tehsildar, but the application moved by the petitioner for the correction of the revenue entries was rejected vide order dated 14.06.2011. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) also dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 17.10.2011. The Additional Commissioner considered the issue involved and passed an order in favour of the petitioner. The Board of Revenue, on flimsy grounds, set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. The Board of Revenue recorded findings that Janak Ram is the brother of Manki Bai and the son of Jannu, which is factually incorrect, as Janak Ram is not a son of Jannu. Further, the Board of Revenue ignored the sale deeds executed by Jannu in favour of Parmanand and Nandlal, who subsequently executed registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioner. The Board of Revenue overlooked the mutation orders passed in favour of Parmanand, Nandlal and the petitioner.

¶69

11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the order passed

¶70

¶71

by the Board of Revenue dated 03.10.2015 is not sustainable in the eyes of the law and is hereby set aside . The order passed by the Additional Commissioner is restored . The Revenue Authorities are directed to comply with the order passed by the Additional Commissioner forthwith.

¶72

12. In WPC No. 3179/2018, the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur, Division Raipur, under Section 33 of the Act of 1976, read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1987, is still pending consideration. The petitioner challenged the order dated 27.03.2003 passed by the Competent Authority, whereby a direction was issued to revert the subject land to its original owner, whereas the land bearing survey no. 224/1, admeasuring 0.194 hectare, was acquired for the construction of a bypass road.

¶73

13. The documents would reveal that the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner is still pending consideration, and its further proceedings were deferred on account of the pendency of WP(227) No. 914/2015.

¶74

14. Respondent No.1 preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue against the order dated 16.03.2016, and it was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 27.02.2017 on the ground that the Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision against any order passed under the Act of 1976.

¶75

15. Respondent No. 1 preferred a review petition before the Board of Revenue for the recall of the order dated 27.02.2017. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 24.09.2018 recalled its earlier order dated 27.02.2017 and admitted the revision preferred by respondent no. 1 for hearing. I am unable to apprehend that when the revision preferred

¶76

¶77

by respondent No. 1 was not maintainable in the first round of litigation and it was dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2017, how it has been held maintainable subsequently.

¶78

16. Section 33 of the Act of 1976 reads as under:-

¶79

33. Appeal. -(1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the competent authority under this Act, not being an order under section 11 or an order under sub-section (1) of section 30, may, within thirty days of the date on which the order is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to such authority as maybe prescribed (hereafter in this section referred to as the appellate authority):

¶80

Provided that the appellate authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

¶81

(2) On receipt of an appeal under subsection (1), the appellate authority shall, after giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it deems fit as expeditiously as possible.

¶82

(3) Every order passed by the appellate Authority under this section shall be final.

¶83

According to Section 33(3) of the Act of 1976, every order passed by the Appellate Authority under this section shall be final, meaning thereby against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, no revision would lie before the Board of Revenue, and it can be challenged by filing a writ petition.

¶84

17. Section 8 of the CG Land Revenue Code, 1959, confers the power of superintendence on the Board of Revenue over all revenue authorities within its appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The proceedings were not initiated either by the Competent Authority or by the Additional Commissioner under the provisions of the CG. Land Revenue Code,

¶85

¶86

1959, rather those proceedings were initiated according to the provisions of the Act of 1976; therefore, the Board of Revenue misconstrued the provisions of Section 8 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 and admitted the revision for hearing.

¶87

18. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the provisions of Section 33 (3) of the Act of 1976 and Section 8 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959, in my opinion, the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 24.09.2018 is not sustainable in the eyes of the law. Accordingly, the order dated 24.09.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue is hereby set aside .

¶88

19. Consequently, both petitions are hereby allowed .

¶89

20. Respondent No.1 would be at liberty to take the appropriate remedy available under the law to claim compensation against the acquisition of Survey No. 224/1, admeasuring 0.194 hectare, if so advised.

¶90

Sd/-

¶91

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶92

vatti

Sunil Tawari v. Janak Ram Kurre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Tawari v. Janak Ram Kurre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Chairman And Managing Director Vs The Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act

Anand Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nitesh More Vs Smt. Chanchal More

Bhawarlal Barle Vs Union of India

State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. Vs Dulichand Lodhi And Anr.

Babulal Vs Union of India