Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
Sunder Nagar Grih Nirman Prathmik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadi - Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Co-operation - Respondents
WPC No. 1781 of 2012
Decided On : 28-11-2023
Public Trust - Land Transaction - Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act 1951, Section 2(2), Section 2(4), Section 2(5), Section 2(6), Section 10, Section 14 - The judgment discusses the cancellation of a land transaction by the Collector, Raipur, and the legal provisions of the Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act 1951, particularly Section 14, which requires the previous sanction of the Registrar for any sale, mortgage, exchange, or gift of immovable property belonging to a public trust. The judgment also highlights the interpretation of the Act by the court, emphasizing that the Registrar's refusal of sanction must be based on the directions in the trust document or any direction given under the Act or any other law by any court. The court also refers to relevant case laws and the role of the Registrar in ensuring the proper administration of public trusts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Cooperative Society, challenged the cancellation of a land transaction by the Collector, Raipur. The dispute arose from objections raised by respondent No. 4, claiming that the land belonged to a public trust and the transaction was void ab initio. The court analyzed the legal provisions of the Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act 1951, particularly Section 14, and the previous orders related to the mutation and objections raised by the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the land transaction by the Collector, Raipur, was not justified as it required the previous sanction of the Registrar under Section 14 of the Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act 1951. The court also emphasized that the Registrar's refusal of sanction must be based on the directions in the trust document or any direction given under the Act or any other law by any court. The court further highlighted the importance of compliance with Rule 9 of the Public Trust Rule 1962 and the limited presumptive value of mutation in revenue records.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the cancellation of the land transaction by the Collector, Raipur, and the jurisdiction of the Registrar in such matters. The court also addressed the compliance with Rule 9 of the Public Trust Rule 1962 and the presumptive value of mutation in revenue records.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act 1951, particularly Section 14, and relevant case laws emphasizing the Registrar's role in granting or refusing sanction for land transactions. The court also emphasized the importance of compliance with Rule 9 of the Public Trust Rule 1962 and the limited presumptive value of mutation in revenue records.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Collector, Raipur, cancelling the land transaction and dismissed the writ petition. The court also vacated the interim order previously passed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 24.07.2012 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector, Raipur by which the Collector has cancelled the entire transaction of land bearing khasra No. 1187/1 area 1.210 acre situated at P.H. No. 106 A, area 1.210 hectare (in short referred to as land) and directed to record the said land in the name of trust/respondent No.6.
2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner is Cooperative Society registered under the Cooperative Socialites Act, 1960 and has purchased the land in dispute from respondent No. 5 in the year 2006. The petitioner applied for mutation in which respondent No. 4 raised objection mainly contending that the land belongs to public trust and erstwhile manager (Sarvakara) namely Mahant Radhika Das of the trust sold the said land, without obtaining due permission from the Collector/ Registrar Public Trust to one Ramnarayan. Purchaser of the land Ramnararayn has sold the land to Rijumal, as such the entire transaction is void ab initio. The petitioner filed reply to the objection contending that Rijumal applied for mutation before the Tahsildar Raipur in the year 1976 and the objection raised by respondent No.4 was turned down accordingly name of Rijumal was mutated as Bhoomiswami of the land vide order dated 07.01.1976. The respondent No.4 has preferred an appeal before Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur which has allowed the appeal vide order dated 25.09.1978 and remitted the matter back to the Tahsildar Raipur for conducting an enquiry afresh giving opportunity of hearing to the parties to lead evidence. The Tahsildar, Raipur again decided the case in favour of Rijumal.
3. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 who claims to be public figure has filed a complaint before the Collector/ Registrar Public Trust Raipur on 08.05.2007 mainly contending that the mutation has wrongly been done and without permission from the Collector/ Registrar Public Trust Raipur the sale deed has been executed. The Collector, Raipur vide its order dated 07.11.2007 has set aside the transaction of the land in question. The petitioner being aggrieved with this order has preferred an appeal in Revenue Case No. 1/B-113(4)-2007-08 dated 07.11.2007 before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue has set aside the order dated 07.11.2007 passed by the Collector, Raipur vide its order dated 02.12.2008. Being aggrieved with this order, the respondent No. 4 has preferred the writ petition which was registered as WP (227) 486/2009. The respondent No. 3 has also filed the writ petition challenging this order by filing WP (227) No. 617/2019. This Court vide its order dated 08.08.2011 has allowed the petition and passed the following order which is as under:-
10. A bare perusal of the order passed by the Collector would reveal; the same has been passed against deceased persons i.e. late Ramnarayan, Rambishal and late Smt. Reza without impleading their legal representatives and without affording them opportunity of hearing. Further, Smt. Manju Krishnani has not been impleaded without her full name. The Board of revenue has also committed the same mistake. The order has been passed by impleading late Ramnarayan, late Rambishal and late Smt. Reza and without impleading their legal representatives as respondents.
11. Indisputably, no order can be passed against deceased persons without impleading their legal representatives in their place and without affording them opportunity of hearing.
12. Considering every aspect of the matter and the fact that both the authorities below have passed the orders against deceased persons, in the considered opinion of this Court, both the orders dated 07.11.2007 a
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of the previous sanction of the Registrar for any sale, mortgage, exchange, or gift of immovable property belonging to a public tru....
The registrar's refusal to grant permission for trust property sale must be supported by evidence of prejudice to public interest; arbitrary denials are against statutory provisions.
Point of Law : where the legislature does not provide for any length of time within which the power of revision is to be exercised by the authority, suo motu or otherwise, it is plain that exercise o....
Civil Law - Validity of Sale deed - A voidable document is one which remains in force until set aside and such a document can be set aside only by a competent civil court. A suit for that purpose wou....
The court established that procedural impropriety and lack of jurisdiction in cancelling a building license and khata, without due notice, violate principles of natural justice, rendering such orders....
The authority to annul a registered sale deed lies with civil courts, and a sale deed executed without the vendor having title is void ab initio, conferring no rights to the purchaser.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
