SINOLE BENCH v. RE^PONDENTS

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^f WRIT PETITION No. 5114 OF 2005 PETITIONER BabuLal RESPONDENTS VERSUS Paras Ram & Others. Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri. J. Present: Shri Ram Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the respondents No.1 & 2. Shri V.V.S.Murthy, Dy. Advocate General for the State/ respondent No.4. ORDER ^OPENCOURT) (Passed on this 01st day of July, 2013) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 08.07.2005 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, in Revision Case No.109/A- 23/2003-04, whereby, the revision filed by the petitioner was rejected.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased the land in question from Paras Ram/ respondent No.1. ^L Though, Paras Ram was minor, 7 years old, when his mother Sukhmat Bai executed the sale deed. They also belong to tribe community. Thereafter, the petitioner being a tribe had purchased the land from other tribal. Thereafter, it was given to the respondent No.2 on share of half of the crops produced in the year. Thus, the Board of Revenue has committed an error in holding that since the possession of respondent No.2/ Mohd. Ismail was not proved, it cannot be held that he was in possession.

Learned State counsel submits that it is correct fact that the respondent No.2 was not in possession, as he was cultivating the land on behalf of the petitioner.

Be that as it may, several disputed question of facts are involved, firstly; whether the sale deed allegedly executed by Sukhmat Bai, mother of ^.^^^ Paras Ram/respondent No.1 was legally valid, secondly; whether Section 170B ofthe Land Revenue Code, 1959 is applicable, ifthe purchaser as well as the seller daimed to be tribes. The petitioner had failed to prove his title, possession as well as ownership on the basis of alleged grounds, aforesaid. The land was given, according to the petitioner, to the respondent No.2 for cultivation, is also not proved. The nature of the sale or possession cannot be decided by the Board of Revenue and, as such, the impugned order dated 08.07.2005 is set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to the competent civil court for settling his right to the property on the basis of the afore-stated alleged sale deed, and other documents also, if required and so advised.