Kanhaiya Lal Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - Kanhaiya Lal Chandra S/o Late Shri Niranjan Chandra Aged About 58 Years R/o Village- Dataud, Tahsil- Jaijaipur, DistrictJanjgir-Champa(C.G.), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

2 - Chhattisgarh Board Of Revenue Through Its Secretary, Mungeli Naka Road Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

3 - Commissioner Bilaspur Division, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa

¶16

2

¶17

(C.G.), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶18

5 - Tehsildar Jaijaipur District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶19

6 - Jivendra Kumar Chandra S/o Late Shri Manohar Lal Chandra R/o Village- Sakarra, Tahsil- Malkharoda, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶20

7 - Vimla Chandra D/o Late Shri Manohar Lal Chandra R/o VillageSakarra, Tahsil- Malkharoda, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶21

8 - Smt. Phool Bai W/o Late Shri Manohar Lal Chandra R/o VillageSakarra, Tahsil- Malkharoda, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶22

... Respondent(s)

¶23

(Cause Title is taken from CIS System)

¶24

For Petitioner	:	Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate
For State	:	Mr. Amit Nayak, P.L.
For Respondents No. 6 to 8	:	Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate

¶25

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶26

CAV Order

¶27

By way of the present petition, the petitioner calls in question the

¶28

legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated

¶29

3

¶30

06/04/2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Learned C.G. Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. R.N./06/R/A-70/53/2019, whereby the order of the Learned Tehsildar dated 28/02/2015 rejecting the application under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 1153/2, Rakba 0.35 Acres, Village Dataud, Tehsil Jaijaipur, District JanjgirChampa, has been reversed and the proceedings under Section 250 have been held maintainable.

¶31

The subject matter of the present petition, in brief, is that the impugned order dated 06/04/2022 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Learned C.G. Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. R.N./06/R/A-70/53/2019, arising out of the order dated 06/02/2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Learned Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, which in turn arose out of the order dated 19/02/2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Learned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sakti, and further out of the order dated 28/02/2015 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Learned Tehsildar, Jaijaipur, whereby the application preferred by Respondents No. 6 to 8 under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 1153/2, Rakba 0.35 Acres, situated at Village Dataud, Tehsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, was

¶32

4

¶33

rejected by the Learned Tehsildar on the ground that proceedings under Section 250 of the Code are not maintainable in respect of a house constructed over the subject land.

¶34

Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:-

¶35

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Suitable Writ (s), Order (s), Direction (S), by quashing the impugned order dated 06/04/2022 (Annexure P-1), arising out of order dated 06/02/2019 (Annexure P-2) & Order dated 19/02/2018 (Annexure P-3), and further be pleased to pass an order by restoring the order dated 28/02/2015 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of Learned Tehsildar Jaijaipur (Respondent No. 5 herein).

¶36

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the court below for its kind perusal.

¶37

10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

¶38

Facts of the case, in brief, are that theRespondents No. 6 to 8, being the legal representatives of the original applicant Manohar Lal Chandra, instituted proceedings under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before

¶39

5

¶40

the Court of Learned Tehsildar, Jaijaipur (Respondent No. 5 herein), seeking reinstatement in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 1153/2, Rakba 0.35 Acres, situated at Village Dataud, Tehsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa. The said proceedings arose in the background that the original applicant Manohar Lal Chandra had entered into an agreement to sell the aforesaid land in favour of the petitioner, had accepted advance consideration from the petitioner and had also delivered possession of the subject land to him, pursuant to which the petitioner came into possession and constructed a house thereupon. Since the registered sale deed was not executed by the original owner, the petitioner instituted a civil suit for specific performance of contract, which came to be dismissed by the Learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30/11/2011, against which the petitioner preferred First Appeal No. 13/2012 before this Hon’ble Court and the same is still pending consideration. During pendency of the said dispute, the Learned Tehsildar, Jaijaipur, after drawing proceedings under Section 250 of the Code, rejected the application of Respondents No. 6 to 8 vide order dated 28/02/2015 on the ground that since a house had already been constructed over the subject land, proceedings under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code

¶41

6

¶42

were not maintainable. Being aggrieved, Respondents No. 6 to 8 preferred an appeal before the Learned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sakti, who vide order dated 19/02/2018 reversed the order of the Learned Tehsildar and allowed the appeal. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Learned Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, which too came to be dismissed vide order dated 06/02/2019 affirming the order of the Learned S.D.O. (Revenue), Sakti. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Learned C.G. Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, which also stood dismissed vide order dated 06/04/2022 affirming the orders passed by the authorities below, hence the present petition.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders dated 19/02/2018, 06/02/2019 and 06/04/2022 passed respectively by the Learned S.D.O. (Revenue), Sakti, the Learned Commissioner, Bilaspur Division and the Learned C.G. Board of Revenue are wholly illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the scheme of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, inasmuch as the revenue authorities have exceeded the limited scope of proceedings under Section 250 of the Code and have virtually assumed the jurisdiction of a Civil Court in a matter involving possession founded upon an agreement to sell, construction of a house

¶44

7

¶45

over the subject land and a pending civil dispute between the parties. It is submitted that once it was admitted and evident from the record that a house had already been constructed over the subject land and the dispute between the parties arose out of an agreement for sale, the controversy ceased to be a simple matter of summary restoration of possession under Section 250 of the Code and necessarily fell within the domain of the competent Civil Court. Learned counsel would contend that the Learned Tehsildar had rightly rejected the application under Section 250 as not maintainable, but the appellate and revisional authorities, without appreciating the nature of the dispute and the limits of their jurisdiction, reversed the said finding and thereby acted in excess of jurisdiction and in contravention of settled principles of law, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶46

Learned State counsel supports the impugned orders and submits that the revenue authorities have acted within their jurisdiction under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 after proper appreciation of the record. It is submitted that the land continues to be recorded in the name of late Manohar Lal, and the petitioner, having failed in his suit for

¶47

8

¶48

specific performance, has no subsisting right to retain possession. It is further submitted that the mere existence of a small structure raised by the petitioner does not vitiate the maintainability of proceedings under Section 250 of the Code, particularly in view of the concurrent findings recorded by the S.D.O., Commissioner and Board of Revenue, which call for no interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶49

Learned counsel appearing for Respondents No. 6 to 8 would submit that the present petition is wholly misconceived and deserves to be dismissed, as the petitioner has no lawful right to continue in possession of the subject land after dismissal of his suit for specific performance and is merely an unauthorized occupant over the land belonging to the legal representatives of late Manohar Lal. It is submitted that late Manohar Lal, being the recorded tenure-holder of the land bearing Khasra No. 1153/2, Rakba 0.35 Acres, situated at Village Dataud, Tehsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, had sought restoration of possession by filing an application under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 after the petitioner failed to return possession and instead raised a small hut over a portion of the suit land. Learned counsel would contend that the Learned S.D.O. (Revenue),

¶50

9

¶51

Sakti, upon due consideration of the material available on record, rightly found that the alleged construction was only over a small portion of the land, that the land continued to stand recorded in the name of late Manohar Lal in the revenue records, and that in the absence of any interim protection in favour of the petitioner in the pending first appeal, the Tehsildar had erred in rejecting the application under Section 250 merely on the ground of such construction. It is further submitted that the said findings were concurrently affirmed by the Learned Commissioner, Bilaspur Division as well as the Learned C.G. Board of Revenue, and therefore no interference is warranted with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the revenue authorities. Learned counsel would further submit that once the petitioner’s suit for specific performance stood dismissed, he could not claim any independent right to retain possession against the true owner, and in view of the settled position of law, including the principle laid down in Revanasiddayya v. Gangamma & Ors. (2018) 1 SCC 610 , the petitioner is bound to restore possession to the recorded owner and cannot defeat the lawful claim of Respondents No. 6 to 8 by raising a temporary hut over a small part of the land. It is thus submitted that the petitioner is an encroacher/trespasser in unauthorized

¶52

10

¶53

possession of the suit land and the orders passed by the Learned S.D.O. (Revenue), the Learned Commissioner and the Learned Board of Revenue are legal, proper and well within jurisdiction, calling for no interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶54

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶55

Having perused the material available on record, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The revenue authorities have concurrently recorded findings of fact that the land in question continues to be recorded in the name of late Manohar Lal Chandra and that the petitioner had come into possession pursuant to an agreement to sell, and after dismissal of his suit for specific performance, has no subsisting enforceable right to continue in possession of the subject land. The authorities have further found that the petitioner had raised a small structure over a portion of the land, which by itself does not defeat the maintainability of proceedings under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, particularly when the dispute essentially relates to

¶56

11

¶57

unauthorized continuation of possession after failure of the contractual claim.

¶58

This Court is of the considered view that the scope of interference in writ jurisdiction against concurrent findings of fact recorded by statutory revenue authorities is extremely limited, and no case is made out to show that the findings suffer from perversity or are based on misreading of evidence. The reliance placed by learned counsel for respondents on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Revanasiddayya v. Gangamma alias Shashikala and another, (2018) 1 SCC 610 , is well founded, wherein it has been held that a transferee whose suit for specific performance is dismissed cannot continue to retain possession and is bound to restore possession to the lawful owner, and any construction raised during pendency of litigation does not confer any independent right upon such party.

¶59

In view of the aforesaid legal position and the concurrent findings recorded by the learned S.D.O.(Revenue), Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned orders.

¶60

12

¶61