Allowed¶43

Shri Kartik Ram (Died) Through Lrs v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Jan 2026WPC/1385/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog lacks adjudicatory power; Section 9 Adhiniyam 1995 advisory/recommendatory functions; Section 170-B CGLRC tribal land reversion; Commission order quashed as without jurisdiction; revenue hierarchy SDO-Collector-Commissioner; WPC 1385 of 2014; Sahbo Lal Sahu WPC 765/2015 relied upon; State of Chhattisgarh; respondent No.3 liberty to approach appropriate authority.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order/memo dated 11.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) of respondent No.2 is quashed as without jurisdiction; respondent No.3 may approach the appropriate authority if the cause of action still survives; petition allowed. ¶43

Shri Kartik Ram (Died) Through Lrs Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 (President, Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog) had jurisdiction, under Section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Anusuchit Janjaati Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995, to direct reversion of respondent No.3's land under Section 170-B of the CGLRC and correction of revenue records, when the dispute had already been conclusively adjudicated by the revenue courts in favour of the original petitioner.

¶24

Court's answer

It was undisputed that the Section 170-B CGLRC proceedings ran between the original petitioner and respondent No.3, and every order in that chain — SDO, Additional Collector, and Commissioner, Bilaspur Division — was in favour of the original petitioner Kartik Ram.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.2 has no authority under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam to pass orders exercising the power under Section 170-B of the CGLRC; such matters fall within the domain of the revenue authorities — the SDO, then the appellate authority (Collector) and thereafter the Commissioner as revisional authority.

¶40

Key takeaways

By virtue of Section 9(2), the Commission's advice is ordinarily binding on the Government and its function is advisory/recommendatory; the Adhiniyam confers no adjudicatory power on the Commission. The impugned order, carrying directions to revert the land to respondent No.3 and correct revenue records, is therefore recommendatory in neither character nor permissible scope, and is without jurisdiction and authority of law.ratio¶41
Looking to the facts, circumstances and this Court's order in Sahbo Lal Sahu (supra), the impugned order (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2 being without jurisdiction is quashed; respondent No.3 remains at liberty to approach the appropriate authority if the cause of action still survives.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Sachin Singh Rajput, J.), order on board 05.01.2026, WPC No. 1385 of 2014 — Jurisdiction of Scheduled Tribes Commission: The President of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog, by memo dated 11.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) in Case No. 544/2012-2013, directed reversion of land to respondent No.3 under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, despite the dispute having been finally adjudicated in favour of the original petitioner Kartik Ram by the SDO, Gharghoda (Revenue Case No. 216-A/23/198889), the Additional Collector, Raigarh (Appeal No. 2/A-23/2004-2005) and the Commissioner, Bilaspur (Revision No. 155-A-23/2008-09, dismissed 16.12.2010; Review No. 2/A-23/2011-12, dismissed 20.07.2012). Examining Section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Anusuchit Janjaati Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995, the Court held that the Commission's functions are limited to watchdog, recommendation, welfare-oversight and advisory roles under Section 9(1), with its advice ordinarily binding on Government under Section 9(2); the Adhiniyam confers no adjudicatory power, so an order of reversion and record correction was beyond the Commission's authority and rendered the revenue courts' orders ineffective. Relying on Sahbo Lal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPC No. 765/2015, order dated 21.08.2024), the Court quashed the impugned memo, leaving respondent No.3 free to approach the appropriate forum. Petition allowed.

¶1

Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2026.01.09 10:50:01 +0530

2026:CGHC:491

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 1385 of 2014

¶7

1. Shri Kartik Ram (Died) Through Lrs as per Honble Court Order Dated 08-10-2024 1.1 - (A) Bharadwaj Behra S/o Late Laxmiprasad Behra, aged about 47 years R/o Rajpur, Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶8

1.2 - (B) Jitendra Kumar Behra S/o Late Laxmiprasad Behra, aged about 40 years R/o Kumpitiyapara, Rajpur, Lailunga, Distt. - Raigarh C.G.

¶9

... Petitioners

¶10

versus

¶11

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G.

¶12

2. Chhattisgarh State Anusuchit Janjati Ayog Through Its President, Chhattisgarh State Anusuchit Janjati Ayog, 61 Jalvihar Colony, Raipur, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur C.G.

¶13

3. Shri Dilsai S/o Shri Dhobiram R/o Village Kurra, Tahsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶14

... Respondents For Petitioners : Ms. Shruti Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, PL For Respondent No.2 : Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : None

¶15

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶16

Order on Board dated 05.01.2026

¶17

Challenge in this petition is to the order/memo dated 11.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 i.e. President of Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog in Case No. 544/2012-2013 directing reversion of lands of respondent

¶18

¶19

No.3 under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short “CGLRC”).

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the disputed land in this case is Khasra No. 270/1, area 06 acres situate at village Kurra, Tehsil Lailunga, District Raigarh. She submits that respondent No.3 claimed that the disputed property was his ancestral property which was purchased by one Ramdhan son of Nanbudha Kanwar, resident of village Rajpur, Tehsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh by registered sale deed dated 15.02.1974 from one Dhobiram son of Sagu, resident of village Kuri, Tehsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh. The original petitioner Kartik Prasad is said to have purchased the disputed land in auction, and prior to that Ramdhan had purchased the same from the father of complainant namely Pansai by a registered sale deed. After purchasing the said land, Ramdhan is said to have been in possession of that for two years. Subsequently, the said land vested in the State Government and consequent to auction carried out by the Tehsildar it was purchased by the original petitioner herein. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that later on proceedings under Section 170-B of the CGLRC were carried out before the Sub Divisional Officer, Gharghoda in Revenue Case No. 216-A/23/198889 in which the order was passed in favour of the original petitioner Kartik Ram.

¶21

Said order of the Sub Divisional Officer was appealed before The Additional Collector, Raigarh in Appeal Case No. 2/A-23/2004-2005 which also came to be dismissed. Complainant respondent No.3 Revision Case No. 155-A-23/2008-09 before the Commissioner, Bilaspur which was dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2010. Order dated 16.12.2010 passed in the revision was subjected to review in Review Case No. 2/A-23/2011-12 which came to be dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 20.07.2012.

¶22

Later on, respondent No. 3 made a complaint before respondent No.2 requesting to revert the disputed land. By the order impugned, respondent No. 2 directed the reversion of the disputed land in favour of respondent No.3 and also directed for correction in the revenue records. Counsel for the petitioner submits

¶23

¶24

that as the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3 has already been settled by the revenue Courts, respondent No.2 has exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the order impugned and thereby practically rendering the orders of the revenue courts as null and void. She submits that the power which is vested under Section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Anusuchit Janjaati Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 herein referred to an Act “Adhiniyam” does not provide for such direction by respondent No. 2, and thus the order impugned is liable to be set aside. In support of her submissions, she placed reliance on the order of this Court in the matter of Sahbo Lal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed on 21.08.2024 in WPC No. 765/2015 .

¶25

Learned counsel for the State submits that admittedly the disputed land belonged to aboriginal tribe and being so respondent No.2 in exercise of the power under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam has passed the impugned order, which cannot be said to be illegal or beyond the authority of law. He submits that the order impugned is fully justified and calls for no interference in this petition.

¶26

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

¶27

There is no dispute that the proceedings under Section 170-B of the CGLRC were carried out between the original petitioner and the respondent No. 3. From the record it is apparent that the matter travelled up the Court of Commissioner, Bilaspur Division and all the orders passed by the revenue authorities are in favour of the original petitioner.

¶28

The function of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjaati Ayog has been provided under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam, which for ready reference is reproduced as hereunder:-

¶29

"9. Functions of the Commission.-(1) It shall be function of

¶30

Commission-

¶31

(a) to act as watch-dog Commission for the protection afforded to the members of the Scheduled Tribes under the constitution and under any other law for the time being in force.

¶32

(b) To recommend to the State Government to take steps to add particular tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within

¶33

¶34

tribes or tribal communities in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.

¶35

¶36

of Scheduled Tribes and to suggest improvement in such programmes of the State Government or any other body or authority responsible for such programmes;

¶37

(d) to tender advice regarding reservation for Scheduled Tribes in public services and admission in educational institution:

¶38

(e) to perform such other function as may be assigned to it by the State Government.

¶39

(2) The advice of the Commission shall, ordinarily be binding upon the State Government, where, however, the government does not accept the advice, it shall record its reason therefor.”

¶40

Perusal of Section 9 of the Adhiniyam makes it clear that respondent No.2 does not have the authority to pass an order exercising the power under Section 170-B of the CGLRC, rather such matters fall within the domain of the revenue authorities such as SDO, then the appellate authority i.e. Collector and thereafter the Commissioner which the Revisional authority. It appears that after respondent No.3 lost in the Revenue courts, he made an application before respondent No. 2 which came to be allowed by the order impugned. The order impugned appears to be without jurisdiction.

¶41

By virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Adhiniyam advice of the Commission is ordinarily binding upon the government and as such the function of the Commission is advisory/recommendatory in nature. From the scheme of the Adhiniyam it appears that the Commission has not been conferred with the adjudicatory function, rather it is only an advisory/Recommendatory body having advisory jurisdiction. The order impugned does not appear to be recommendatory in nature, rather it carries a direction for reverting the land in favour of respondent No.3 and also for correction of the revenue records, which is without jurisdiction and authority of law. Thus looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the order passed by this Court in the matter of Sahbo Lal Sahu (supra) , the order

¶42

¶43

impugned (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.2 appears to be without jurisdiction and being so it is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 3 is however at liberty to approach the appropriate authority, if the cause of action still survives. Petition is thus allowed.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

( Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶46

Jyotishi/Ashish

Shri Kartik Ram (Died) Through Lrs v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Kartik Ram (Died) Through Lrs v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shyama Laxman Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Balwant Singh Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Lekhram Chandrakar Vs Lomnarayan Chandrakar (Died) through Lrs

Smt. Kanti Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Balaram Uke Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Firat Ram Kenwat Vs State of Chhattisgarh