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.

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 that earlier, a similar application was moved in the year 1992 and the same was rejected and there was permission according to the provisions of Section 165(6) of the Code of 1959 in favour of Radhabai. Thereafter, Hanumat preferred an appeal before the Collector against the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer and the same was rejected on 06.04.2015. He preferred a revision before the Commissioner Bastar, Division Jagdalpur and the same was allowed vide order dated 19.12.2018. The petitioners have challenged the said order by filing the present petition.

3. Mr. Jha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Commissioner, Division Bastar committed an error of law in deciding the revision finally by conducting an inquiry according to the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code of 1959 which was not permissible according to the provisions of the Code of 1959. He would further submit that the learned Commissioner ought to have remitted back the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bastar, who is the competent authority/tribunal to inquire into the matter with regard to Section 170-B of the Code of 1959. He would contend that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) while exercising the power under Section 170-B of the Act of 1959 has been vested with the power to inquire into the permission granted under Section 165(6) of the Code of 1959. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Commissioner in this regard are also erroneous. He would pray that the order passed by the Commissioner may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) to inquire into the matter and pass an appropriate order afresh.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Paranjpe, the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 6 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Jha. He would submit that the Commissioner, Division Bastar has passed a well-reasoned order. He would further submit that earlier, an inquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), therefore, there is no need to conduct a fresh inquiry. He would lastly submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Mr. Prajapati, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the submissions made by Mr. Paranjpe.

6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

7. In the matter of Atmaram Rohulla and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 1995 MPLJ 633, in paras 8, 10 and 12 it was observed and held thus:-

“8. Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with three kinds of presumptions; The first deals with a case where the court may presume a fact as proved it may regard such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved or may call for proof of it. This is the meaning of