Pawaro Vs Shivbhajan

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed byPRASHANT PRASHANT DEWANGAN DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.22 11:35:17 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:18003

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 56 of 2020

¶7

Pawaro W/o Bhanu Pratap Aged About 40 Years By Caste Panika R/o Village Taraju Tahsil Lakhanpur District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Shivbhajan S/o Bahoran Ram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Ghanchapur Tahsil Udaypur District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Jagdal Singh S/o Manijar Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Ghanchapur Tahsil Udaypur District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Smt Anita Agrawal W/o Arjun Das Agrawal Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Ramgarh Road Udaypur District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Surguja District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶14

	... Respondents
For Petitioner	: Mr. Dev Ashish Biswas, Advocate
For Respondent No.1	: Mr. R.V. Ram Rajwade, Advocate
For Respondents No.2 & 3	: None, though served
For State/Respondent No.4	: Mr. Ruhul Ameen, P.L.

¶15

2

¶16

Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

21/04/2025

¶19

1 ) By virtue of this petition, the petitioner- Pawaro Bai, has questioned the legality and propriety of the order dated 06/11/2019 passed by Commissioner, Surguja Division (Ambikapur) in Revenue Revision Case No.201708960100006/98/A-23/2016-17, whereby, the learned Commissioner, while affirming the order dated 29/06/2017 and order dated 31/03/2017 passed by Collector, Surguja and Sub-Divisional Officer, Udaipur, respectively, has dismissed the petitioner’s Revision Petition.

¶20

2 ) From perusal of the record, it appears that, the land-in-question bearing Khasra No.861 admeasuring 0.450 hectare situated at Village-Ghunchapur of Tehsil-Udaipur, District-Surguja was recorded in the settlement record in the name of one Kewtha Panika and after the death of said Kewtha, it was recorded in the name of one Gendi Bai, the maternal grand-mother of the petitioner- Pawaro. It appears further that by virtue of registered deed of sale, dated 25/10/1974, the land-in-question bearing Khasra No.861 admeasuring 0.450 hectare situated on the said village was sold by said Gendi Bai, widow of Budhram, the maternal grand-mother of the petitioner, to one Mohnath, who was the grand-father of respondent No.1Shivbhajan and the revenue papers were, accordingly, recorded in the name of said Mohnath and after his sad demise, an application was made by his son-Bahoran for recording his name in revenue

¶21

3

¶22

paper, however, before recording his name, he passed away and since Shivbhajan, the respondent No.1 was minor, therefore, his name was also not recorded in the revenue papers. It appears further that in the year, 1995-96, the land-in-question was recorded again in the name of Gendi Bai and thereafter, it was recorded in the name of petitioner- Pawaro, who in turn, alienated the part of the land bearing khasra No.861 admeasuring 0.162 hectare to one Jagdal, the respondent No.2, herein under the registered deed of sale dated 17/05/2013 for a consideration of Rs.20,000/- and put him in possession thereof, while the rest i.e., 0.288 hectare of the said khasra number was sold by said Pawaro to respondent No.3Smt. Anita Agrawal under the registered deed of sale dated 17/06/2013 for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- and put her in possession thereof.

¶23

3 ) It is to be seen further that since respondent No.2 and 3 are in possession over the land-in-question bearing Khasra No.861 admeasuring 0.450 hectare, which was already purchased by respondent No.1’s grand father- Mohnath, therefore, he moved an application under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code, 1959”) before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Udaipur on 11/02/2017 seeking restoration of the alleged land, where the case was registered as Revenue Case No.201702021900014/A-23/2016-17 and notices were, accordingly, issued to the respondents, who were appeared before the said authority. It appears further that the statement of Shivbhajan, the respondent No.1 herein, and Jagdal, the respondent

¶24

4

¶25

No.2 were recorded on 14/02/2017, while the statement of Pawaro and one Arjun Agrawal, who is the husband of respondent No.3-Smt. Anita Agrawal, on 20/02/2017 and, after considering the fact that the land-in-question was already purchased by the grand-father of the respondent No.1- Shivbhajan, in the year, 1974, who belongs to the aboriginal, but, was sold subsequently unauthorizedly by said Pawaro, the present petitioner in favour of respondent No.2- Jagdal and the respondent No.3- Anita Agrawal and, therefore, while observing as such, the alleged sales executed in their favours on 17/05/2013 and 17/06/2013 were declared as null and void and, the direction was issued for restoration of the land-in-question in favour of the respondent No.1-Shivbhajan.

¶26

4 ) It appears further that being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred by Pawaro alone before the Collector, Surguja, who in turn, vide its order dated 29/06/2017 (Annexure P/3) has dismissed the same in Revenue Appeal No.43/A-23/2016-17 and was found to be affirmed further by the Commissioner, Surguja Division (Ambikapur) vide its order impugned in Revision preferred by the petitioner-Pawaro.

¶27

5 ) What is therefore reflected from the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, that the land-in-question was initially recorded in the name of one Kewtha Panika and upon his sad demise, it was recorded in the name of maternal grand-mother of petitioner- Pawaro namely, Gendi Bai, who had sold the land-inquestion bearing Khasra No.861 admeasuring 0.450 hectare to one Mohnath, the grand-father of respondent No.1-Shivbhajan, under

¶28

5

¶29

the registered deed of sale dated 25/10/1974 for a consideration of Rs.200/- and, since the land-in-question was already sold by maternal grand-mother of the petitioner- Pawaro, therefore, she (Pawaro) had no alienable interest, whatsoever, to alienate the same to respondent No.2- Jagdal and the respondent No.3- Smt. Anita Agrawal under the registered deed of sales, i.e. 17/05/2013 and 17/06/2013 and, the revenue authorities, while taking note of all these material facts, have not committed any illegality in allowing the application filed by respondent No.1- Shivbhajan under Section 170 of the Code, 1959 restoring the alleged land in his favour, so as to call for any interference in this petition.

¶30

6 ) The petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶31

No order as to cost(s).

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Sanjay S. Agrawal ) Judge

¶34

Prashant

Pawaro v. Shivbhajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawaro v. Shivbhajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunnam Vinod Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Murti Shukla Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Limited

Teerath Bati Kadiyam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/s Navbharat Fuse Company Ltd. Vs Bilaspur Corrugated Industries

M/s Navbharat Explosive Co. Ltd. Vs Bilaspur Corrugated Industries

M/s Sarkar Construction Vs State of Chhattisgarh