Kamal Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 6

¶2

2025:CGHC:51711

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1258 of 2022

¶6

Kamal Ram S/o Late Shankar Ram Aged About 32 Years Caste Munda (Tribal), Resident of Village Tikaitganj, Tahsil & District Jashpur Chhattisgarh

¶7

versus

¶8

1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2 - The Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3 - The Collector Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

5 - Kailash Prasad S/o Late Ramkumar Sao

¶13

6 - Santosh Kumar Gupta S/o Bhola Sao (Wrongly Mentioned As Bhela Sao) Both are resident of Near Bus Stand, Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

¶14

	... Respondents
For Petitioner :	Mr. Jitendra Kumar Saxena, Advocate
For State /Respondents No.1 to 4 :	Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, PL
For Respondents No.5 & 6 :	Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate

¶15

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

16/10/2025

¶18

Digitally
ASHUTOSH signed by
MISHRA ASHUTOSH
MISHRA

¶19

2 / 6

¶20

The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25/10/2019 (Annexure P/1) passed by Respondent No.2, whereby the Respondent No.2 has set aside the order dated 09/07/2018 passed by Respondent No.3.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that the land bearing Khasra No.313 admeasuring area 3.75 acres situated at Village Tikaitganj, P.H. No.3, R.I.C., Tahsil & District-Jashpur (C.G.) was recorded in the name great grandfather namely Ramsahay, who was aboriginal tribe. One Ramkumar Sao (ancestor of respondents no. 5 & 6) has got the aforesaid land transferred in his name in revenue records on the basis of forged and fabricated sale deed, though the said Ramkumar Sao was never in possession over the aforesaid land. After the death of Ramkumar Sao, the aforesaid land has been recorded in the name of respondents no. 5 & 6. After knowledge of transfer of aforesaid land, the petitioner and one Balmohan Ram (now dead) filed an application under Section 170-B of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, 1959) before the Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Jashpur for return of the aforesaid land in the name of petitioner and on the basis of said application, the S.D.O. has registered the revenue case No 01/A-23/2015-16 and issued notices to the respondents no. 5 & 6 and by order dated 23.01.2017, the S.D.O. has fixed the case for evidence of petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.01.2017 fixing the case for evidence of petitioner, the respondents no. 5 & 6 preferred a revision before the Collector, Jashpur and vide order dated 09.07.2018, the

¶22

3 / 6

¶23

Collector, Jashpur has dismissed the revision and further directed the S.D.O. to decide the case after recording evidence of the parties. Being aggrieved by the order dated 09.07.2018, the respondents no. 5 & 6 preferred revision before the respondent no. 2 and vide impugned order dated 25.10.2019, the respondent no. 2 has allowed the revision and set-aside the order dated 09.07.2018 of Collector and on the basis of order of Commissioner, the S.D.O. has closed the proceedings under Section 170-B(3) of Code, 1959. Against the impugned order dated 25.10.2019 the petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Board of Revenue, Bilaspur and the same has been dismissed by order dated 22.07.2021 as not maintainable. Hence this petition.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the issuance of transaction of land in dispute by way of fraud can be decided only after recording evidene of both the parties, therefore, the SDO had rightly proceeded for recording evidence of the parties. He would next contend that on the basis of order of Commissioner, the S.D.O. has clsosed the proceedings under Section 170 -B (3) of the Code, 1959 as such the aforesaid application of the petitioner has not been decided on merits.

¶25

Per contra, learned State counsel would contend that the instant petition is not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

Learned counsel for the Respondents No.5 & 6 would contend that the petitioner had misconceived the fact that the forefathers of the

¶27

4 / 6

¶28

petitioner moved application on 02/12/1957 under section 170-B of the Code, 1959 for seeking permission from the Collector to sale the land to the father of the Respondent no. 5 & 6 thereafter the Collector after due inquiry, recording the statements of the parties and taking the evidence the Collector has initiated the proceedings and granted permission in favour of the Respondent No. 5 & 6 in the year 1958 vide Annexure R-5-6/1. He would next contend that the sale deed was executed by the forefathers of the petitioner in favor of father of the Respondent No. 5 & 6 dated 25/04/1959 after obtaining the permission from the Collector and the same is bona fide transaction before commencement of the act. He would next contend that the petitioner has not mentioned any sustainable reason as to why delay has been caused in filing application under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 after the delay of 70 years, in fact the petitioner in his application para 9 himself admitted the fact that delay has been caused on his part and on 25/04/1959 the registered sale deed was executed before enactment of the Code, 1959. He would lastly contend that the Division Bench of this Court has held that no revenue authority can examine the validity of sale which took place on 02^nd of October, 1959 up to 24^th of October 1980 and would not be authorized to examine the validity of sale in any manner which took place thereafter.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection.

¶30

5 / 6

¶31

Perusal of the documents would show that transaction between the parties was on 25/04/1959 and the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 came into existence on 24/10//1980 with retrospective effect on the date of 02^nd October, 1959.

¶32

Section 170-B(1) of the Code, 1959 is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience:

¶33

[170-B. Reversion of land of members of aboriginal tribe which was transferred by fraud.-

¶34

(1) Every person who on the date of commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment), 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act of 1980) is in possession of agricultural land which belonged to a member of a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub-section (6) of Section 165 between the period commencing on the 2^nd October, 1959 and ending on the date of the commencement of Amendment Act, 1980 shall, within two years of such commencement, notify to the Sub-Divisional Officer in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, all the information as to how he has come in possession of such land”].

¶35

This Court in the matter of Yadram (Dead), through Lrs Smt.

¶36

6 / 6

¶37

Yamuna Bai and others V. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2015 (5) CGLJ 402 has held that the writ petitioners are in possession of land in dispute prior to the commencement of the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code i.e. before 02-10-1959, the provisions of Section 170-B of the CGLRC are not applicable in the case.

¶38

Therefore, in view of the provisions of the CGLRC and the law laid down by this Court, the Sub Divisional Officer does not have the jurisdiction to examine the correctness of sale deed as per Section 170-B of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus to file the instant petition and question the transaction which took place on 25/04/1959 i.e. prior to the commencement of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 i.e. 02/10/1959.

¶39

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶40

SD/-

¶41

SD/-

¶42

(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE

¶43

ashu

Kamal Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhanu Pratap Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Baswan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Singhal Steel and Power Pvt. Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Krishna Kumar Verma Vs Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog

Ramesh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prahlad Suktel Vs State of Chhattisgarh