The Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) v. 1. The Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Circuit Bench, Raipur
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH 2025:CGHC:4644 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 5025 of 2008 State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Circuit Bench, Raipur (CG) 2. Aziz Farishta, S/o Shri Abdul Sultan Farishta, Aged about 42 years, R/o village Deopuri, Tahsil & District- Raipur (C.G.) U ---- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27.01.2025 Heard. 1.
Facts
The petitioner/State has challenged the order passed by respondent No.1/Board of Revenue, Circuit Court, Raipur(C.G.) in Revenue Case No.M/14/R/B-121/56/2008 dated 22.05.2008 whereby the application moved by respondent No.2 under Section 8 read with Section 32 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short the Code of -2- 1959’) was allowed and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur was directed to delete the word ‘Shamilat Charagan’. 2. The facts of the present case are that the villagers of Village Deopuri, Patwari Circle No.75, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.) moved an application for consolidation of their agriculture holding before the Consolidation Officer, Raipur (C.G.). On 15.04.1991, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) passed an order for the consolidation and the lands comprising Survey No.340 area 14.23 acres, Survey No. 206 area 22.49 acres, Survey No.207 area 0.93 acres, Survey No.318 area 40.76 acres and Survey No.340 area 2.31 acres situated at Village Deopuri were also included in the proceedings of consolidation. 3. The villagers of Deopuri including respondent No.2 preferred an appeal against the order dated 15.04.1991 before the Collector, Raipur. The Collector Raipur vide order dated 24.04.1992 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, a second appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, Raipur and it was also dismissed on 08.10.1992. 4. Respondent No. 2 and villagers of Deopuri preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, Gwalior (MP) and vide order dated 31.12.2001, the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Collector and the Commissioner were set aside and the revision preferred by the Villagers of Deopuri was allowed. 5. The Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Revenue pursuant to the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 31.12.2001 directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to comply with the order 3 and correct the revenue records vide letter dated 13.04.2005. 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer instead of complying with the order passed by the Board of Revenue and the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Revenue passed an order against the villagers of Deopuri holding that the subject land would remain grass land in the revenue records. 7. Respondent No.2 approached the Board of Revenue by filing an application under Section 8 read with Section 32 of the Code of 1959 stating that earlier an order was passed by the Board of Revenue in favour of the villagers whereby the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur was directed to delete the word ‘Shamilat Charagan’ and to restore the names of the villagers. It is also stated that a direction was issued by the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Revenue and the same has also not been complied with. The State was afforded proper opportunity before the Board of Revenue and vide its order dated 22.05.2008, the Board of Revenue allowed the application moved by respondent No. 2 and against that order, the petitioner/State has preferred this petition. 8.
Legal Reasoning
on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh and others Vs. Pawan Chauhan and others, WP(227) No.115 of 2013 decided on 23.08.2018. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Paranjpe, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Pandey. He would submit that initially the applications were moved by 5 the villagers of Deopuri before the Consolidation Officer for Consolidation of grazing lands. He would further submit that the authority concerned included the lands of the villagers also in that order, whereas, there was no such prayer by the villagers in their applications. He would contend that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 15.04.1991 was challenged before the Collector who dismissed the appeal, and thereafter before the Commissioner Division, Raipur which was also dismissed. He would further contend that all those orders were challenged before the Board of Revenue by the villagers by filing a revision and that revision was allowed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 31.12.2001. He would state that the order passed by the Board of Revenue attained finality as it was not challenged before any higher forum. He would further state that a specific direction was issued by the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Revenue to comply with the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 31.12.2001 but the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur again on 16.11.2007 reiterated his earlier order. He would also submit that being aggrieved by the order and the manner in which the order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, respondent No. 2 approached the Board of Revenue by filing an application under Section 8 read with Section 32 of the Code of 1959 and the same has been allowed. He would further argue that the power conferred under Sections 8 and 32 of the Code of 1959 can be exercised by the Board of Revenue to secure ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of law, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner/State is misconceived and deserves to be -6- dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 11. In the matter of Pawan Chauhan (supra), the Coordinate Bench held that the Board of Revenue has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it and exceeded its authority by not only granting permission which has been conferred to the Collector under Sections 165(6) (ii) and 165(7) of the Code but also further exceeded the jurisdiction by lifting/relaxing the ban imposed and by directing the competent authority to furnish 22 point information and further directing the Deputy Registrar to register the sale deed. Relevant para 27 is reproduced herein below:- “27. There is yet another reason for not upholding the order. Even the Board of Revenue has relaxed the ban imposed by the Collector under its jurisdiction. The Board of Revenue has no business to lift the ban imposed by the Collector under the provisions of law, it could have been relaxed by the competent authority, if applied for by the aggrieved person, and in the manner provided under the law. The Board of Revenue has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it and exceeded its authority by not only granting permission which has been conferred to the Collector under Sections 165(6) (ii) and 165(7) of the Code but also further exceeded the jurisdiction by lifting/ relaxing the ban imposed and by directing the competent authority to furnish 22 point information and further directing the Deputy Registrar to register the sale deed. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order passed by the Board of Revenue granting permission under Section 165(6)(ii) of the Code and relaxing the ban deserves to be and is hereby quashed being wholly without jurisdiction and without authority of law. Consequently, registration of sale deed, if any, is also quashed.” Pawan Chauhan (supra) was a case where contrary to the 7 provisions of Section 165(6) of the Code of 1959, permission was granted by the Board of Revenue to alienate the property which is otherwise not permissible. The power is conferred with the Collector alone to grant such permission and in the cited case, permission was granted by the Board of Revenue, therefore, the Coordinate Bench held that the Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction. In the cited case, respondent No. 4 whose predecessors were parties to the earlier proceeding, filed an application under Section 8 read with Section 32 of the Code of 1959 before the Board of Revenue. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the facts of the cited case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 12. In the present case initially, an order was passed on 31.12.2001 in favour of the villagers of Deopuri to restore the lands of the villagers in their own names. It was not challenged before any superior forum. 13. The Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Revenue also directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to comply with the order passed by the Board of Revenue but the Sub-Divisional Officer again passed the order stating that the lands of the villagers would remain as ‘grass land’ and the revenue records cannot be corrected. 14. Section 8 of the Code of 1959 reads as under:- “S.8 -Powers of Superintendence of Board.- The Board shall, in respect of all matters subject to its appellate or revisional jurisdiction, have superintendence over all authorities in so far as such authorities deal with such matters and may call for returns. -8- 15. Section 32 of the Code of 1959 reads thus:- “S.32.Inherent power of Revenue Courts.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Revenue Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.” A conjoint reading of Sections 8 and 32 of the Code of 1959 would make it clear that the revenue courts including the Board of Revenue for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court may take an appropriate decision. 16. In the present case also when the order was passed in favour of the villagers on 31.12.2001, there was no occasion for the Sub-Divisional Officer to reiterate its earlier order. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur exceeded its jurisdiction by flouting the order passed by the superior Courts. 17. With regard to the contention made by Mr. Pandey, this Court while disposing of W.P. No.5220/2007 never directed the petitioner to review its earlier order. The petitioner was only directed to consider the representation as the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur failed to comply with the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 31.12.2001 and the direction issued by the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Revenue. Therefore, the contention made by Mr. Pandey is misconceived. 18. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion 9 of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Rekha Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge
Arguments
Mr. Vinay Pandey, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State would submit that the Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction while entertaining the application moved by respondent No.2 under Section 8 read with Section 32 of the Code of 1959. He would further submit that respondent No.2 had an efficacious statutory remedy to prefer a revision according to the provisions of -4- Section 50 of the Code of 1959 and a specific objection was raised in this regard before the Board of Revenue. He would contend that in a routine manner, the powers conferred under Section 8 read with Section 32 of the Code of 1959 cannot be exercised by any of the revenue authorities. Mr. Pandey would also submit that a writ petition bearing W.P. No.5220 of 2007 was filed by respondent No. 2 and other villagers before this Court seeking a direction for the compliance of the order passed by the Board of Revenue and the direction issued by the State Government. He would further argue that in that petition, a liberty was granted to the petitioners of that petition to prefer a representation before the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur (C.G.) was directed to consider such representation, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) passed the order pursuant to the order passed by this Court. He would also argue that respondent No. 2 failed to demonstrate any extreme exigency in his application for exercising power under Section 8 read with Section 32 of the Code of 1959, therefore, the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 22.05.2008 is illegal and void-ab-initio, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, Mr. Pandey has placed reliance