Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Ajay Agrawal S/o Rambihari Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Mehatarin D/o Hanumat – Respondent
Order :
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.)
1. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division Jagdalpur (C.G.) dated 19.12.2018 in Revision Case No.27/A-23/14-15 whereby the revision preferred by respondent No.1 was allowed and the orders passed by the Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) were set aside.
2. The facts of the present case are that the land admeasuring 2.82 acres situated at Village-Bhirlinga, Tehsil Bastar, District Jagdalpur was recorded in the name of Hanumat. He moved an application seeking permission to sell his property according to the provisions of Section 165(6) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code of 1959’) and the same was allowed vide order dated 14.07.1972 and thereafter, he sold the property through a registered sale deed to one Radhabai. Radhabai sold the property to the petitioners herein. The petitioners were found in possession of the suit property, therefore, on the application moved by Hanumat, a proceeding under Section 170-B of the Code of 1959 was initiated by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bastar. The authority concerned rejected the application moved by Hanumat on the ground
The Commissioner cannot decide land sale permissions on merits but must remit the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer for proper inquiry under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.
The Additional Collector had jurisdiction to grant permission for land sale under Section 165(6) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, and the High Court's interference was erroneous.
The court affirmed that transactions predating the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code are not subject to its provisions, and the power of review cannot be exercised beyond the limitation period.
A land sale finalized under old tenure is valid without needing permission, and re-opening resolved disputes requires substantial justification; delay affects maintainability of claims.
Sale deeds executed without prior permission under Section 50-B of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act are invalid and cannot be regularized post facto.
The Divisional Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revoke sale permission under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Rehabilitation Act, as no appellate remedy is provided in the statute, making the cancell....
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
