Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:37001 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1436 of 2024 1 - Budru S/o Late Banda, Caste Madiya, R/o Village Godiyapal And Village Madhota Tahsil And District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Sukri W/o Late Kamlu, W/o Budru S/o Late Banda, Caste Madiya, R/o Village Godiyapal And Village Madhota Tahsil And District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ishwar S/o Late Kamlu, Caste Madiya, R/o Village Godiyapal And Village Madhota Tahsil And District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Samrath S/o Late Kamlu, Caste Madiya, R/o Village Godiyapal And Village Madhota Tahsil And District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Aasman S/o Late Somaru, Caste Madiya, R/o Village Godiyapal And Village Madhota Tahsil And District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Santu S/o Pandru, Caste Madiya, R/o Village Godiyapal And Village Madhota Tahsil And District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Radhekant S/o Chedilal R/o Village And Tahsil, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.07.31 11:24:12 +0530
Legal Reasoning
2 - Smt. Aabha Shukla W/o Anil Shukla S/o Chedilal R/o Village And Tahsil, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 2 3 - Smt. Nisha W/o Ramakant Garudh Prasad Mishra S/o Baburam Mishra, R/o Village Makdi District, Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Garudh Prashad Mishra S/o Baburam Mishra R/o Village Makdi District, Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Sukali W/o Rupdhar R/o Village And Post Retawand Tahsil And District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Devnath S/o Rupdhar R/o Village And Post Retawand Tahsil And District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Smt. Gajmati W/o Late Deenbandhu R/o Village And Post Retawand Tahsil And District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Ku. Sita D/o Late Deenbandhu R/o Village And Post Retawand Tahsil And District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 9 - Ku Yashoda D/o Deenbandhu R/o Village And Post Retawand Tahsil And District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 10 - Nitesh S/o Late Deenbandhu R/o Village And Post Retawand Tahsil And District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 11 - Revenue Board Through Secretary Bilaspur C.G. Circuit Camp Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 12 - The Commissioner Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 13 - The Tahsildar Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 14 - The S.D.O. District- Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Soumitra Kesarwani, PL 3 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 29/07/2025 The present petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 30.05.2023 whereby the respondent No.11- Board of Revenue has dismissed the application by which the Collector has sought permission to review the Rev. Case No. 168/A- 21/71/72 under Section 51 of the CG Land Revenue Code. 2. Facts of the case in brief is that the petitioners have filed application under Section 170-B of the CG Land Revenue Code before the learned SDO (Rev), Jagdalpur, District Bastar alleging that they belong to Scheduled Caste Community and their ancestors were having agriculture land at village Madhota, Tahsil and District Bastar. It is the case of the petitioners t hat the respondent No.1 is not an aboriginal tribe and he had purchased their land in the name of Bhurkha as a benami transaction and thereafter he transferred the land in his own name and therefore the petitioners have prayed for restoration of possession of the aforementioned land. 3. On receiving the application, learned SDO (R) issued notices to the respondents and on receiving the reply, rejected the application filed by the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the order of the SDO (R), the petitioners preferred appeal before the Collector Jagalpur, Ditrict Bastar and after issuing notices and reply , dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the SDO (R). Aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector, the petitioner preferred Second Appeal before 4 the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Place Jagdalpur, District Bastar. The Commissioner quashed the order passed by the Collector and directed him to examine the entire record of earlier transaction/permission and sent a proposal with recommendation for reviewing the instant case. In compliance of the said order, the matter was sent to the Revenue Board and the Revenue Board rejected the application for grant of permission to review the instant matter on 30.05.2023. Hence, the present petition. 4. Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent NO.11/Board of Revenue has not considered the provisions of the CG Land Revenue Code and the owner of the disputed land is by four persons whereas the sale deed has been signed by 3 persons. The Revenue Board without examining the case has passed the order impugned which is illegal and violation of the rights of the petitioners. It is further submits that the respondent authority Board of Revenue has failed to exercise the power conferred upon him under Section 44 of the CG Land Revenue Code. 5. Learned State counsel submits that review of order under Section 51 (1)(iii) of the CG Land Revenue Code which has effect on any authority between the persons can be done only on the appliation of any party to the proceedings. No such application for review of such order would be entertained unless it is made within 90 days of the passing of such order. As per Section 51(2) of the Code, no order shall be reviewed except on the grounds provided in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.However, the petitioners have raised his grievance after a lapse of 50 years and therefore the petition is not maintainable. 5 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. In the present petition, the permission was granted for review of the order dated 28.03.1972 in Case No. 168/A-21/1971-22 by the Collector, District Bastar 50 years prior to the filing of the petition and the prescribed period has been lapsed and there is no basis for granting permission after such a long period of 50 years. Hence the petitioners’ prayer for review of the order passed nearly five decades ago is not legally tenable and is expressly barred under Section 51(1) (iii) of the CG Land Revenue Code ,1959 which prohibit such review after the prescribed period. Hence the claim is liable to be rejected on the ground of statutory bar and laches. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge