IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that Bhumiswami rights cannot be transferred without proper permissions as mandated by the Land Revenue Code, and the petitioners failed to establish valid occupancy rights.

ORDER :

(Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.) :

1) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the order dated 07.02.2005 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kondagaon in Rev.Case No. 01/A-23/03-04 (Annexure P/5) by which the learned Sub Divisional Officer has directed the petitioner to return the land in question and also directed for deleting their names, adding the name of the respondent No.1 as Bhumiswami of the land. The petitioner has also preferred this writ petition assailing the Order dated 06.01.2006 passed by the Additional Collector, Narayanpur in Rev. Appeal No. 01/A-23/03-04 and order dated 19.01.2007 passed by the Revenue Board, Bilaspur, Circuit Court, Jagdalpur by which the order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer has been upheld.

2) The facts in brief as projected by the petitioners are that the petitioners are R/o Village Khachgaon, Tehsir Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar. In Village Khachgaon, one Dharma S/o Rupa was residing and was holding certain lands bearing Khasra No. 6 & 8/2, Area 2.50 and 1.10 Acres. As Dharma left the village and the petitioner No. 1 was cultivating the aforesaid lands for the last 25 years andhe made an application before the Tehsildar, Kondagaon for acquisition of rights over the said land due to long cultivation and the original Bhumiswami left the land. The Tehsildar registered the case, issued notices to Dharma as well as General Public. On 28.07.80 the original Bhumiswami Dharma appeared before the Tehsildar and his statement was recorded. In his statement Dharma deposed that he had left the village for last 25 years and is residing in Village Kanga with his son and he has given the aforesaid land to the petitioner No. 1 voluntarily. As nobody from the general public has made objection to the application filed by the petitioner No. 1, the Tehsildar vide order dated 27.08.80 passed the order and granted the Bhumiswami rights. The petitioner has also paid the compensation equal to 15 times of the land revenue to the original Bhumiswami Dharma as per Section 190(3) of the Land Revenue Code. Accordingly the name of the petitioner No. 1 was recorded as Bhumiswami in the Revenue Record in the year 1980-81.

3) In the year 2003-04, respondent No. 1 made an application U/S 170-A & B of the C.G.L.R. Code contending that the land which is in possession of the petitioners was earlier recorded in the name of her husband Dharma and the petitioners taking the advantage of unsoundness of Dharma got their names recorded in the revenue records and the land be reverted back to her. On the basis of the application filed by the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 4 registered a case and issued notices to the party. The petitioners submitted their reply mainly contending that the provisions of Section 170-A and 170-B of C.G.L.R. Code cannot be applied to the present case. The respondent No. 4 recorded the evidence of respondent No. 1 and thereafter passed the order in favour of respondent No. 1 on 07.02.2005. The petitioners have preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector/ respondent No.3 who vide order dated 06.01.2006 dismissed the same. Being aggrieved with this order the petitioners have preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue who vide impugned order dated 19.01.2007 (Annexure P/7) has dismissed the revision. The petitioners by way of this petition assailed the order dated 07.02.05, 06.01.06 and 19.01.07 passed by the revenue authorities.

4) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that Respondents No. 2 to 4 failed to consider the provisions of Section-170-B(3) of the Land Revenue Code which provides for an enquiry to be conducted by the Sub-divisional Officer as provided under Sub Section 3 of Section-170-B of Land Revenue Code. He would further submit that the respondents failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by Respondent No. 1 in which she had admitted the fact that her husband appeared before the Tehsildar and consented for mutation, she has further admitted th