JUDGMENT

Parth Prateem Sahu, J. - Correctness and sustainability of the order dated 19.06.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.363 of 2006 is put to challenge in this appeal wherein the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in part, set aside the order passed by the Board of Revenue and further enhanced the amount towards value of land fixed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Surajpur (hereinafter referred to as 'SDO (R)') by Rs.2 Lacs to be paid to the Appellants/Respondents No.4 to 8 therein.

2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that, the Patwari, Halka No.51, Revenue Circle Surajpur, submitted a report to the SDO (R) mentioning therein that lands bearing Khasra Nos.2403, 2404, 2405 and 2407 admeasuring 0.085, 0.048, 0.012 and 0.012 hectares respectively have been recorded in the name of Kishori Lal Agrawal i.e. Respondent No.4 herein, but in Bandobast Mishal of the year 1946, the aforementioned lands have been shown to be owned and recorded in the name of Gopal Gond S/o Pandit Gond (aboriginal Tribe).

3. Based upon the aforementioned report submitted by the Patwari, the SDO (R) registered a case under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code of 1959') against Respondent No.4. In reply to the notice of the proceedings drawn by the SDO (R), Respondent No.4 has submitted that the lands bearing Khasra Nos.2403, 2404, 2405 an 2407 and 2400/2 were purchased from one Mohan S/o Bhausa Gond in the year 1950 for a total consideration of Rs.90/- and since then, he is in possession of aforementioned lands after raising residential accommodation and also constructed surrounding boundary wall. It was also pleaded that on the land in question, he has installed 'Saw Mill' and doing his business. It was further mentioned that except the land bearing Kharsa No.2400/2, other lands were recorded in the name of Gopal S/o Pandit Gond and the said land was purchased by Mohan S/o Bhausa Gond, who subsequently sold it to Respondent No.4. The land is a diverted land and is situated within the boundaries of municipal limits.

4. The SDO (R) has recorded evidence of witnesses produced by the respective parties and held that the defence taken by Respondent No.4 is contrary to the facts available on record as in the year 1950 when it is said to be purchased from Mohan, disputed land was owned by Gopal and not by Mohan. The SDO (R) taking into consideration the evidence and pleadings held that over the land in dispute, Respondent No.4 has raised construction and by applying the provisions of Section 170-B (3) (b) of the Code of 1959, assessed the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,03,935/-.

5. The order passed by the SDO (R) dated 21.01.2002 was challenged by the Appellants herein before the Collector, District Surguja (Ambikapur) in an appeal, which was dismissed. The order passed by the Collector was further challenged by the Appellants herein in a revision before the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur. The Board of Revenue while arriving at a finding that the spot was not inspected properly as provided under Section 170-B of the Code of 1959, set aside the order passed by the SDO (R) as well as the order passed by the Collector and remitted back the case to the SDO (R) with a direction that he should visit the spot personally and prepare a report and then, pass order and calculate the amount of compensation. The order passed by Board of Revenue was challenged by Respondent No.4 herein/Petitioner by filing writ petition before High Court on the grounds mentioned therein, which was allowed in part, by the learned Single Judge while setting aside the order passed by Board of Revenue, enhanced the amount of compensation calculated by the SDO (R) and ordered Respondent No.4 to pay a sum of Rs.2 Lacs in addition to the amount already directed to be paid to Appellants by the SDO (R).

6. Shri D. N. Prajapati, learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the Board of Revenue after considering th