Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J.
Ravindra Sai @ Harishchandra Sidar S/o Ghasiya Ram - Appellant
Versus
Naihar Sai @ Badgi S/o Late Charo Uraon and ors. – Respondents
SA No. 115 of 2011
Decided On : 08-08-2024
(A) Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 – Sections 170B and 257 – Second appeal against the order of the first appellate Court setting aside the trial Court's decree in favor of the plaintiff regarding title and injunction of land – The first appellate Court held the sale deed as benami, which was challenged by the plaintiff – The jurisdiction of civil courts is barred under Section 257 against orders passed under Section 170B, which pertains to the reversion of land belonging to members of aboriginal tribes – The Supreme Court's ruling in Dhulabhai v. State of M.P. establishes that civil courts cannot interfere with the exclusive jurisdiction of revenue authorities unless fundamental principles of judicial procedure are violated – The court upheld the first appellate Court's decision, affirming that the transaction was benami and the civil suit was not maintainable. (Paras 10, 11, 21, 24)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of land purchased from defendants 1 & 2, who later sought to reclaim it, alleging the transaction was benami. The trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the first appellate Court reversed this decision.
Findings of Court:
The first appellate Court's finding that the sale deed was benami was upheld, and the civil suit was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. Issues: Whether the civil suit was barred under Section 257 and whether the sale was a benami transaction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the civil court's jurisdiction is limited in matters under Section 170B, and the first appellate Court's findings were justified based on the evidence presented.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J.
1.This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2011 passed in Civil Appeal No.13A/2008 by Third Upper District Judge, FTC, Surguja (Ambikapur) (CG), whereby the learned first appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.12.2007 passed in Civil Suit No.44A/2007 by Second Civil Judge Class-II, Ambikapur (Surguja) whereby, learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
(For sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status before the trial Court)
2.Facts of the case in nutshell are that the plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction alleging inter-alia that he had purchased suit land situated at Village Maharainipur Tehsil Sitapur Distt. Surguja total area 1.344 hectare (Schedule A of the plaint), vide registered sale deed dated 15.12.1980 (Ex-P/1) from defendants 1 & 2 and his name was also mutated in the revenue record. Defendants 1 & 2, after selling their property, left their native village Kotchall and started living in village Kanchira Tahsil Dharamjaigarh Distt. Raigarh. Vide Revenue Case No.378/A-23/82-83 proceeding was initiated before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ambikapur under Section 170B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code 1959’) on the ground that there was a benami transaction in the name of the plaintiff as suit land of defendants No.1 & 2, who belong to aboriginal tribe is in possession of defendants No.3 & 4, who are non-tribal. After enquiry, the SDO (Revenue) dismissed the application vide Order dated 16.4.1984 holding that there is transaction between persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes to Scheduled Tribes, i.e. between plaintiff and defendants No. 1 & 2, hence, Section 170B of the Code 1959 is not applicable. After the lapse of 15 years, on February 2001, defendants 1 & 2 again moved an application before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) for returning the land. The said application was also rejected by the SDO (Revenue) on the ground of res-judicata. Thereafter, defendants 1 & 2 have preferred an appeal before the Collector, Surguja, who in turn, vide Order dated 28.3.2003 set aside the order passed by the SDO (Revenue) and directed the plaintiff to return the suit land to defendants 1 & 2. On the strength of that order, defendants 1 & 2 are trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land, hence, the plaintiff has filed civil suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction.
3.The Defendants 1 & 2 filed their written statement denying the substantive contentions of the plaintiff and pleaded that they had given the suit land on mortgage to defendant No.3 Vindhyachal @ Jhitku in the year 1980 and after lapse of 8-9 years, in the month of Falgun, they requested Vindhyachal @ Jhitku to return the land after obtaining the mortgaged amount, but he refused to return the same, thereafter they enqruied the revenue record and came to know that Vindhyachal @ Jhitku had got the name mutated in the name of plaintiff and cultivating the same as a Benami. It is further contended that plaintiff is not the son of Ghasiya Ram and name of Ghasiya Ram’s son is Harishchandra Sidar, but defendants 3 & 4 prepared forge and fabricated sale deed in the name of the plaintiff and they are cultivating the suit land, whereas, they have never executed sale deed of suit land, rather defendant No.3 has got executed the same by impersonating other person as defendant No.1 & 2. Thus, aforesaid transaction is not only benami transaction but it is forged and fabricated also. It has further been pleaded that, by filing instant civil suit, plaintiff has challenged Order dated 28.3.2023 passed by Collector under Section 170B of the Code 1959, which is barred under Section 257 of aforesaid Code. Therefore, the suit is liable to be
Civil courts lack jurisdiction over matters under Section 170B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, particularly regarding benami transactions involving members of aboriginal tribes.
The court affirmed that the provisions of Section 170-B of the MPLR Code protect the land rights of aboriginal tribes, and Civil Courts lack jurisdiction over matters exclusively under the MPLR Code.
Civil suits can challenge revenue authority orders if they violate principles of natural justice. Failure to notify affected parties renders such orders void.
The court emphasized that a plaintiff cannot pursue a civil suit to establish title without challenging a binding order from a revenue authority.
The judgment affirms that civil courts lack jurisdiction over certain land disputes involving aboriginal tribes under specific statutory provisions.
The sale deed for the property did not require permission from the Collector, and the suit was maintainable without a declaration of title.
The recognition of a caste as a Scheduled Tribe is area-specific and must align with Presidential Orders; wrongful assumptions can lead to jurisdictional errors in land transfer claims.
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
