Point of Law: Civil Law - Revenue Board - Jurisdiction - It is definitely within domain of revenue authorities to take a final decision on issue as to whether lands in question are Government lands and if so, whether they are required to be secured in terms of title and/or possession in terms of and in accordance with relevant laws and following due process.

JUDGMENT :

GOUTAM BHADURI, J.

1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 13.11.2020 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Revenue Board. Pursuant to a petition filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4 the division bench of this court by an order dated 13.09.2017 directed that the lis projected by the respondents No. 1 to 4 be decided by the Revenue Board in accordance with law within a specified time. Subsequently, pursuant to the order, the Revenue Board has passed the impugned order, which is subject of challenge.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that Dau Kalyan Singh was holding certain land at Raipur which was subject of ceiling cases and the ceiling cases were terminated after vesting of the excess land in the government. He would submit that after closure of the ceiling case it was never contested by the government. It is stated that Dau Kalyan Singh was having two co-widows namely Smt. Sarjawati Bai and Smt. Janak Nandini both of them died issue less and Sarjawati Bai gave a general power of attorney to one Ram Murty Agrawal in the year 1965 and a WILL was executed by Sarjawati in favour of Ram Murty Agrawal on 8.6.1970 and the registered WILL was executed in his favour. Subsequently, Ram Murty Agrawal executed a WILL in favour of Anup Kumar and Swarup Kumar on 1.1.1992 which was also a registered WILL and thereby the petitioners Anup Kumar and Swarup Kumar became the owner of the different lands. It is further contended that Ram Murty also appointed the petitioners as trustee of the private trust and thereby mutation was made in their favour by the Tehsildar Bhatapara in the year 1995. It is further stated that respondents No. 1 to 4 had filed a PIL before this court bearing number 51/2015 wherein the division bench has ordered for hearing of issue by the Revenue Board in accordance with law and the Revenue Board has instead of deciding the case in accordance with law went into deciding the validity and existence of WILL and the inheritance and held that since the original holder died issue less and WILL can't be taken cognizance therefore the land would vest into State. He would submit that separate MCC was also filed wherein the liberty was given to challenge the order of Revenue Board, therefore the instant petition.

3. Learned counsel further submits that according to the finding of the Board of Revenue, the ceiling case itself since was closed after death of Janak Nandani, the one widow of Dau Kalyan Singh and the ceiling case was closed. It is stated Janak Nandani since died issue less, the property cannot go into the hands of the State as the property was inherited by other co-widow Sarjawati. He would submit that admittedly the ceiling case having been closed long back the same cannot be re-opened and again the land cannot be vested into the State when the property was bequeathed by way of a WILL. It is further submitted that the Revenue Board exceeded its jurisdiction to decide the inheritance and devolution of the property and the provisions of the Land Revenue Code was given a go bye to pass the order. Therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that order of the Revenue Board is well merited. He would submit that the petitioner Anup Kumar has relied on a WILL executed by Sarjawati but the WILL was never produced before any court. He would further submit that in respect of the trust property nothing is on record that how the trust property was converted into property of private persons and further the WILL having not been produced according to the statement of the witnesses before the Tehsildar, the Revenue Board has correctly decided the same to confiscate the property in favour of the State. It is also submitted that in respect of part of property a civil suit was filed by petitioner and the finding was against them with respect to ownership of the property.

5. Learned State counsel would submit that the order of the Revenue Board is