Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:28832 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 665 of 2008 1. Ranjit S/o Mukundi Aged About 55 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Anantpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2. Sukhlal S/o Jailal, Caste Gond, R/o Village Anantpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3. Triveni Singh S/o Jailal, Caste Gond, R/o Village Anantpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4. Phool Singh S/o Jailal, Caste Gond, R/o Village Anantpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 5. Tirbhajan Singh S/o Jailal Singh, Caste Gond, R/o Village Avantikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 6. Heeralal S/o Jai Singh, Caste - Gond, R/o Village Avantikapur, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Motilal S/o Satyanarayan Caste Baiswar, R/o Village Avantikapur, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2. Hridayalal S/o Satyanarayan Caste - Baiswar, R/o Village Avantikapur, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3. Bhagwan Das S/o Panna Lal Caste - Baiswar, R/o Village Avantikapur, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 4. Ramgopal S/o Panna Lal Caste - Baiswar, R/o Village Avantikapur, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.07.29 11:02:28 +0530 2 5. Ankjaniya Wd/o Panna Lal Caste - Baiswar, R/o Village Avantikapur, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 6. Satyanarayan (Died) 1. Sant Kumar S/o Late Ramjiyawan Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Avantikapur, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 7. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 8. The Sub Divisional Officer Surajpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 9. The Tahsildar Surajpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
Division Bench of this Court in case of Yadram (Dead) Through Lrs. Smt. Yamuna Bai & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others. reported in 2015 (5) CGLJ 402 (DB) wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has held as under: “16. Thus, normally, the statutes are applicable only with prospective effect or from the date indicated in it and not with retrospective effect unless specifically provided. In absence of express words or appropriate language from which retrospectivity may be inferred, law takes effect from the date it is issued and not from any prior date. Further, it is to be borne in mind while interpreting a statute that the interpretation given does not create new disabilities or new obligations or new duties in respect of transactions which are complete. If possible, the vested rights should be respected while interpreting a statute 17. In the present case, law is amended with limited retrospective effect. Plain reading of Section 170-B of the Code as amended covers the transaction made between 2-10-1959 till 24-10-1980 and not the transaction made prior to 2-10-1959. The language of Section 170-B of the Code is plain and unambiguous and it is not permissible to deploy rules of interpretation to attribute any other meaning to the words used by the legislature, that those which naturally flow from it. If the plain words of Section 170-B of the Code are interpreted in such a way as to assign its meaning other than what is written in it, that is, if the Section is read to apply to transactions done prior to 2-10-1959 despite specific stipulation in the Section that it will apply to transactions done on and after 2-10- 1959, then such an interpretation will create new obligations and duties disturbing the vested rights which, normally, should not be done by resorting to interpretation. Therefore, on the face of the plain and unambiguous wordings of Section 170-B of the Code, we are unable to subscribe to any view other than the one 4 that it is restricted in its application to the transactions done between 2-10-1959 and 24-10-1980 only. 19. In view of the legal opinion we have formed regarding the applicability of Section 170-B of the Code, we answer the question referred that the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code and Act No. 15 of 1980 (with effect from 24- 10-1980) will apply in respect of transaction involving transfer / acquisition of right by a non-tribal over a land, before such acquisition of title or interest or transfer, belonged to member of tribe who has been declared to be an aboriginal under sub-section (6) of Section 165 of the Code from the commencement of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 i.e. 2-10-1959 till commencement of the Amendment Act, 1980 i.e. 24-10- 1980.” 3. This legal preposition will not be disputed by the petitioner, therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench in case of Yadram (dead)
Arguments
: Mr. Sourav Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Ms. Meena Shashtri, Advocate For State : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Section 226 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 16.11.2007 (Annexure P/3) passed by the learned Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. 174/A-23/2002-03 by which the learned Board of Revenue has affirmed the order dated 18.05.2001 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer by which the application under Section 170-B filed by the private respondent has been allowed and also affirmed the order dated 17.04.2002 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Collector by which the Collector has directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to assess the market value of 3 the property and pay the difference amount to the respondent as the sale has been carried out by the Bank in violation of Section 165(6) of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. Hence this petition. 2. Learned State counsel would submit that the issue raised in this petition has already covered by the order passed by Hon’ble
Decision
(Supra) and accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs. 4. The interim order passed by this Court on 04.02.2008 is vacated. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish