Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 REKHA SINGH NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4210 of 2019 1 - Sukhnandan S/o Bisouha Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Kunra, Tahsil Navagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shyam Lal S/o Bisouha Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Kunra, Tahsil Navagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Amrit Lal S/o Bisouha Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Kunra, Tahsil Navagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 4 - Heera Lal S/o Bisouha Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Kunra, Tahsil Navagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - (Died), Bisouha, Through Legal Heir As Per Honble Court Order Dated 15-02-2024 1.1 - (A) Smt. Dukahlin Bai W/o Late Bisouha Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Kura, P.S. Nandghat, District Bemetara (C.G.) 1.2 - (B) Dilharan S/o Late Bisouha Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kura, P.S. Nandghat, District Bemetara (C.G.) 1.3 - (C) Gauri Bai D/o Late Bisouha, W/o Dilip Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kharkena, Hardimod, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 1.4 - (D) Godawari Bai D/o Late Bisouha, W/o Toran Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Mulmula, District Bemetara (C.G.) 1.5 - (E) Dharmin Bai D/o Late Bisouha, W/o Birend Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Darchura, P.S. Simga, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 1.6 - (F) Ashwani Sahu S/o Late Bisouha Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kura, P.S. Nandghat, District Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Board Of Revenue Bilaspur, Circuit Court Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Commissioner Durg Division, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sub Divisional Officer Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 6 - Tahsildar Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioners For State : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, PL -2- For Respondent No.1 brief of Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate : Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate holding the Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 31.07.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for record of the court below. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 12-09-2019 (Annexure P-1). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of petitioners over the subject land. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Mr. Tulsyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that pursuant to the demarcation report, an application under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code of 1959’) was moved by respondent No.1 before the Tehsildar and it was allowed vide order dated 11.05.2015 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He would further submit that the said order was affirmed by the Collector vide order dated 24.08.2015. He would contend that the Commissioner vide order dated 11.05.2017 allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioners and remitted back the matter to the concerned Tehsildar to decide it afresh after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the parties. Mr. Tulsyan would also contend that respondent No.1 preferred a revision 3 against the said order before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue vide order dated 12.09.2019 set aside the order passed by the Commissioner and allowed the revision preferred by respondent No.1. He would argue that according to the provisions of Section 250 of the Code of 1959, the Tehsildar was under the obligation to provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as there is a dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.1. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Tulsyan. She would submit that initially, an application under Section 129 of the Code of 1959 was moved, which was allowed in favour of respondent No.1. She would further submit that the said order was challenged before the superior revenue authorities and orders were passed in favour of respondent No.1. She would contend that pursuant to the demarcation report, an application under Section 250 of the Code of 1959 was moved and it was allowed by the Tehsildar and there was no reason for the Tehsildar to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as the order of demarcation had attained finality. She would also contend that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Ms. Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, would support the order passed by the Board of Revenue. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. -4- 6. Section 250 of the Code of 1959 reads as under-: “250.Reinstatement of bhumiswami improperly dispossessed.(1)For the purpose of this section and Section 250-A bhumiswami shall include occupancy tenant and Government lessee. (1-a) If a bhumiswami is dispossessed of the land otherwise than in due course of law or if any person unauthorisedly continues in possession of any land of the bhoonmiswami to the use of which such person has ceased to be entitled under any provision of this Code, the bhumiswami or his successor-in-interest may apply to the Tahsildar for restoration of the possession. (a)in case of bhumiswami belonging to a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub-section (6)of Section 165-(i)before the 1st July, 1978 in cases of unauthorised dispossession prior to the 1st July, 1976; and(ii)in any other cases within five years from the date of dispossession or from the date on which the possession of such person becomes unauthorised, as the case may be;(b)in case of a bhumiswami not covered by clause (a), within two years from the date of dispossession or from the date on which possession of such person becomes unauthorised, as the case may be. (1-b) The Tahsildar shall on coming to know that a bhumiswami has been dispossessed of his land otherwise than in due course of law, suo motu start proceedings under this section. (2)The Tahsildar shall, after making an enquiry into the respective claims of the parties, decide the application and when he orders the restoration of the possession to the bhumiswami, put him in possession of the land.(2-a) The proceedings started under this section shall after receipt of reply from the other party, continue from day to day unless for reasons to be recorded in writing a longer adjournment is considered necessary and in that case a copy of the order sheet containing the reasons for such adjournment shall be sent to the Collector. (3)The Tahsildar may at any stage of the enquiry pass an interim order for handing over the possession of the land to the bhumiswami, occupancy tenant or Government lessee, as the case may be, if he finds that he was dispossessed by the opposite party within six months prior to the submission of the application or commencement of suo motu proceedings under this section. In such 5 case the opposite party shall, if necessary, be ejected under orders of the Tahsildar. (4)When an interim order has been passed under sub-section (3) the opposite party may be required by the Tahsildar to execute a bond for such sum as the Tahsildar may deem fit for abstaining from taking possession of land until the final order is passed by the Tahsildar. (5)If the person executing a bond is found to have entered into or taken possession of the land in contravention of the bond, the Tahsildar may forfeit the bond in whole or in part and may recover such amount as an arrear of land revenue (6)If the order passed under sub-section (2) is in favour of the applicant the Tahsildar shall also award compensation to be paid to the applicant by the opposite party which shall be at the prorata rate of [one thousand rupees] [Substituted 'two hundred and fifty rupees' by C.G. Act No. 14 of 2011, dated 3.5.2011.] per hectare per year. (7)The compensation awarded under this section shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. (8)When an order has been passed under sub- section (2) for the restoration of the possession to the bhumiswami the Tahsildar may require the opposite party to execute a bond for such sum as the Tahsildar may deem fit for abstaining from taking possession of the land in contravention of the order. (9)Where an order has been passed under sub- section (2) for the restoration of the possession of the bhumiswami, the opposite party shall also be liable to fine which may extend to [ten thousand rupees] [Substituted 'five thousand rupees' by C.G. Act No. 14 of 2011, dated 3.5.2011.] : Provided that it shall not be competent to the Tahsildar to impose a fine of amount exceeding [five thousand rupees] [Substituted 'one thousand five hundred rupees' by C.G. Act No. 14 of 2011, dated 3.5.2011.] but if in any case he considers that circumstances of the case warrant imposition of a higher fine, he may refer the case to the Sub- Divisional Officer who shall, after giving the party concerned an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders in respect of fine as he may deem fit.” A bare reading of this provision would make it clear that before taking a final decision, the authority concerned is under an -6- obligation to provide an opportunity of hearing to the opposite party. 7. In the present case, an application under Section 250 of the Code of 1959 was moved pursuant to the demarcation report, and the Tehsildar directly passed an order without the issuance of a notice to the opposite party. The Commissioner vide order dated 11.05.2017 remitted back the matter to the Tehsildar to provide a sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The Board of Revenue allowed the revision preferred by respondent No.1 and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner contrary to the provisions of Section 250 of the Code of 1959 and therefore, the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 12.09.2019 is not sustainable in the eyes of the law and is hereby set aside and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 11.05.2017 is restored. 8. The parties are directed to appear before the Tehsildar on the 12th of August, 2025. The concerned Tehsildar is directed to conclude the proceedings preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present
Decision
petition is disposed of. Sd/- Rekha (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge