Section 116 of the Code, 1959 does not permit new entries in land records and only allows for correction of existing entries for aggrieved persons.

ORDER :

1. By way of this petition, the petitioners are questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 23.10.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed in Revenue Case No. R.N./05/R/A-70/119/2011, whereby, the Board of Revenue, has dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioners while affirming the order dated 07.01.2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur in Revenue Appeal Case No.279/A-70/2009-10 and accordingly, the application filed by respondent No.1- Guruvindar Singh under Section 116 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code, 1959’), has been allowed.

2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No.1-Guruvindar Singh on the basis of an agreement to sale, dated 06.07.2005 (Annexure P-3), purported to have been executed in his favour by one Santosh Kumar, who is one of the co-owners of the land in question bearing Khasra No.225/1 admeasuring 7.59 acres situated at village Chorha, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, moved an application on 22.01.2008 before the Court of Naib Tehsildar, Dhamdha for recording of his name in Kafiat column of Khasra Panchashala under Section 116 of the Code, 1959. The said application was allowed by the said authority vide its order dated 26.02.2008, which was reversed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Durg vide its order dated 28.06.2008, and in appeal preferred thereagainst by respondent No.1, it was reversed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur vide its order dated 07.01.2011 and was found to be affirmed further by the Board of Revenue vide its order impugned dated 23.10.2012 in revision preferred by the petitioners and being aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred this petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the entire proceedings as initiated under Section 116 of the Code, 1959, at the instance of the respondent No.1- Guruvindar Singh is not at all sustainable as the same has been initiated on the basis of an alleged agreement to sale, dated 06.07.2005, seeking new entries in revenue record which is, however, not permissible under the said provision. It is, therefore, contended that the revenue authorities, except the Sub-Divisional Officer (R.) Durg, have committed an illegality in directing for recording the name of said respondent in the revenue papers. The order impugned as passed by the Board of Revenue while rejecting his revision petition and that by allowing the said application filed by respondent No.1 under Section 116 of the Code, 1959 is, therefore, liable to be set-aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have supported the order impugned as passed by the court below.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully.

6. Admittedly, the petitioners are the owners of the land bearing Khasra No.225/1 admeasuring 7.59 acres situated at village Chorha (Rampur), Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg and, a part of it, i.e. 0.405 hectares (1 acre) was agreed to be sold by one of the co-owner, namely, Santosh Kumar in favour of the respondent No.1- Guruvindar Singh by executing an agreement to sale, dated 06.07.2005 (Annexure P-3), while putting him in possession thereof. Initially, said Guruvindar Singh based upon the alleged agreement moved an application (Annexure P-4) on 30.04.2007 for partition. The said proceeding, which was registered as Revenue Case No.16-A-74/2007-08, was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 26.12.2007 and the same was, thereafter got to be restored vide order dated 16.01.2008 and subsequently, the said application was again dismissed vide order dated 05.07.2008. It appears that during its pendency, said Guruvindar Singh moved another application (Annexure P-7) on 22.01.2008 while invoking the provision prescribed under Section 116 of the Code, 1959 and praying for recording of his name in Kafiat column of Khasra Panchashala based upon the alleged agreement to sale, dated 06.07.2005. T