were wrongly treated as Jhadi Jangal/Manwar Gautiya land. Khasra No.114, admeasuring 0.073 hectare, was recorded in the revenue records of 1958 in the name of Sunder, son of Bhadar, and thereafter devolved upon his surviving legal heirs. As regards Khasra Nos. 141 and 144, admeasuring 1.846 hectares, though alleged to be Government/Manwar Gautiya land, the said land was recorded in the Wazib-ul-arz of the Surguja State Settlement, 1939, and was subsequently settled in favour of Manwar Gautiya and thereafter recorded in the names of Gaya, son of Vishwanath, and Sobhnath, son of Bhadar. The revenue records of 1958, particularly Entry No. 8, Khata No. 19, recorded the said persons on the basis of Bakshishnama and recognized their possession. Such decades-old revenue entries could not have been disturbed by exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction after more than five decades. The petitioner’s further case is that Khasra Nos. 141 and 144 were neither Nazul land nor lease land allotted by the Government and, therefore, no permission of the Collector was required for their transfer; alternatively, by virtue of Section 158 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, the persons continuously possessing the land recorded in Wazib-ul-arz and continuing in possession after commencement of the Code had acquired the status of Bhumiswami. In respect of the remaining Khasra Nos. 120 (1.979 Hect.), 122 (0.247 Hect.) and 132 (1.327 Hect.), total 3.553 hectares, which were alleged to be Pahadi Korwa land, the petitioners rely upon mutation record No. 14 dated 24.05.1967, contending that although the land was originally recorded in the names of Durjan Korwa and Preetam Korwa, Durjan Korwa had been absconding since 1940 and, after his presumed civil death, the land was recorded in the name of Sobhnath, who was in possession and paying land revenue/jamabandi, and thereafter, following his death, in the name of Satyanarayan. These material revenue records of 1958 and 1967 were ignored by the authorities.
