Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:37480 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4025 of 2025 1 - Shyamlal Dewangan S/o. Late Dudhnath Dewangan, Aged About 80 Years R/o. Subhash Ward, Jagdalpur, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Sudha Jain, W/o. Kamlesh Jain, Aged About 50 Years R/o. Vrindavan Colony, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 3 - B. Vasudev Rao, S/o. Late B. Satyanarayan, Aged About 65 Years R/o. Mother Terresa Ward, Jagdalpur, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 4 - Smt. B. Poornakala, W/o. B. Vasudev Rao, Aged About 61 Years R/o. Near Ganesh Temple, Fezarpur, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Shobha Jain, W/o. Late Shantilal Jain, Aged About 61 Years R/o. Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Shreyansh Jain, S/o. Shri Late Shantilal Jain, Aged About 35 Years R/o. Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 3 - Collector Jagdalpur (Bastar Division) District Bastar (C.G.) 4 - Munnalal, S/o. Sukhlal Nag, Aged About 63 Years R/o. Maharani Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 5 - Pushpa, D/o. Sukhlal Nag, Aged About 50 Years R/o. Maharani Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner For Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate : Ms. Akanksha Verma Dabhadker, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.08.01 11:06:53 +0530 2 31/07/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following relief(s);- 10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be issued a writ/writs order/orders, direction/directions and the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 passed by Commissioner Bastar Division Jagdalpur in appeal No. 202008950100013 /04/A-21/2019-20 between Munnalal & 1 Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & 5 others, may kindly be set-aside and the appeal preferred before the Commissioner may kindly be dismissed. 10.5 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be granted any other relief/order/direction in favour of petitioner, which deemed fit & proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners are the owners of the disputed lands, they had purchased the property by registered sale deeds from Golo Bai @ Gelo Bai W/o. Late Shyamsundar R/o. Maharani Ward Jagdalpur. The disputed lands were purchased after obtaining permission from the Collector Jagdalpur. The Collector has obtained the report from Tehsildar Jagdalpur and thereafter, on the basis of the report dated 24.05.2003 the permission was granted by the Collector on 23.06.2003 in Revenue Case No. 83/A-21/Additional Collector/2002-03. On the basis of the permission granted by the Collector, the registered sale deeds were executed in favor of the petitioners in the year 2003 and thereafter, the names of the petitioners were recorded in the revenue records and they are enjoying the said properties. Gelo Bai was issueless and she was died on 30.07.2012. From the date of permission granted by the Collector on 23.06.2003 to the date of registered sale deeds in the year 2003 and thereafter, till the death of Gelo Bai i.e. till 3 30.07.2012, no objection whatsoever was raised till the death of Gelo Bai on 30.07.2012. All of sudden after near about 17 years, Munnalal S/o. Sukhlal Nag and Pushpa D/o. Sukhlal Nag have filed an appeal before the Commissioner Bastar Division, challenging the order dated 23.06.2003, whereby the permission was granted. Munnalal and Pushpa claiming themselves to be the nephew of Gelo Bai. The Commissioner at the first instance allow the appeal on 05.10.2021, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners herein who are the registered owners and has cancelled the permission granted by the Collector. For setting aside the exparte order dated 05.10.2021, the application for review was filed, the Commissioner vide its order dated 28.03.2023 has rejected the said application, in holding that the petitioners can challenged the order by filing the appropriate appeal or revision in accordance with law. Further, that the petitioners have approached the Board of Revenue by filing the revision, the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 10.06.2024 has allowed the revision, set-aside the order of Commissioner dated 05.10.2021 and has remanded the matter back to the Commissioner to decide afresh, keeping in mind (a) as to whether Munnalal and Pushpa have any locus to challenge the order of Collector granting permission under Section 165, (b) whether, the reasons assigned for filing of an appeal after 17 years are bonafide or not. The Commissioner vide impugned order dated 24.06.2025 has allowed the revision, in holding that Munnalal and Pushpa have the locus to challenge the order of the Collector and reasons for delay in filing the appeal is bonafide. 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Commissioner has failed to appreciate that Gelo Bai died on 30.07.2012 i.e. after near about 9 years from the date of permission granted by the Collector in the year 2003 and during her lifetime she never either challenged the permission or the sale deeds executed in favor of the petitioners. The petitioners are bonafide purchasers and they had purchased the property after paying the full amount of consideration and that to after obtaining the permission from the competent authority under Section 165(6) of the Land Revenue Code. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Commissioner has also failed to appreciate that the order passed by the Collector as per section 165(6)(c) is final. As per the said provisions the decision of the Collector granting or refusing to grant the permission shall be final. In view of the said provisions the appeal before the Commissioner under Section 44 was not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 4 & 5 are claiming themselves to be the nephew of Gelo Bai and they were aware in respect of the said transaction which is apparent from Annex.P/13, but the appeal was preferred on 24.08.2020 i.e. after near about 17 years and there is no sufÏcient explanation for challenging the permission after execution of the sale deeds in the year 2003. Even during the lifetime of Gelo Bai, no such proceedings were drawn. Moreover, being the nephew of Gelo Bai though it is not admitted, the respondent supposed to challenge the sale deeds executed in favor of the petitioners. 5 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is well settled that, the registered sale deeds would remain enforce till it is set- aside by the competent authority. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter reported in 1995 (1) SCC 198, 2019(2) SCC 727, 1996(1) SCC 435 has held that, sale deed not challenge would remain enforce. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, the Commissioner has committed gross illegality in passing the said order and cancelling the permission after 17 years from the date of the execution of the sale deed. The order passed by the Collector, whereby the permission was granted cannot be question by the respondent No. 4 & 5 on the ground of fraud, because from 2003 to 2012, neither the Gelo Bai nor the private respondents have challenged the said permission or the sale deeds before the competent authority if any. The reasons assigned by the Commissioner are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The findings recorded by the Commissioner that, while condoning the delay, the principles of natural justice ought to have been followed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decision has held that, the inordinate delay cannot be condoned as a charity, specially when the rights would be accrued in favor of the party, (2024 SCC Online SC 551). Moreover, the Collector has granted permission after holding proper enquiry and after considering the need of Gelo Bai, on one hand the entire amount of sale consideration paid to Gelo Bai was distributed amongst the family member and now those family members have questioned the grant of permission in the year 2003. Therefore learned counsel for the petitioner prays 6 for quashment of the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 pased by the Commissioner Batar Division Jagdalpur. 8. Learned counsel for respondents that with regard to the grievance of the petitioner, there is an alternative remedy is available to petitioners to file revision against the order of the Commissioner. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Considering the submission of the respondents and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that there is an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to file revision against the order of the Commissioner. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to file revision before the concerned authorities within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in turn the respondent-authorities shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 11. Till the revision of the petitioner is decided, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 12.
Decision
Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Sd/- Jyoti