Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to determine land title disputes, which must be settled in civil courts, rendering related appeals maintainable under proper legal challenges.

ORDER :

1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner-Mukesh Kumar is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg in Case No.288/A-70/2019-20, whereby, the learned Commissioner, while upholding the orders dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure P-8) and 23.09.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg and the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar, respectively, has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, holding it to be not maintainable.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the land bearing Khasra No.1161/1, Plot No.28-A, admeasuring 1250 square feet was owned by one Prakash Samantkar, while the land bearing Khasra No.1169/2, Plot No.28-B, admeasuring 1250 square feet by A. Surya Narayan and the entire said land, which falls within Khasra Nos.1153 to 1199, was mortgaged by them with the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”) for obtaining the loan amount and when they failed to repay the same, a symbolic possession of it was taken over by the said Bank and thereafter, moved an application before the District Magistrate, Durg for obtaining its physical possession, who in turn, passed the orders on 28.02.2013 and 23.05.2015 in favour of the Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the SARFAESI Act”).

3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, a Securitisation Application No.121/2015 was moved by one Lallu Ram Verma, the respondent No.2 herein, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), alleging inter alia, that the land bearing Khasra No.1211/1 (Old Khasra No.169) admeasuring 2600 square feet, consisting of Plot No.19 was held by him, as the same, which falls within the limit of Khasra Nos.1200 to 1223, was purchased by his father under the registered deed of sale dated 14.07.1981 from one Chandrika Prasad, but, the said borrowers-Prakash Samantkar and A. Surya Narayan and the Bank with the malafide intentions misguided the Court of District Magistrate in order to get the physical possession of his land, i.e. the land bearing Khasra No.1211 admeasuring 2600 square feet, which compelled him to file the said Securitisation Application.

4. The aforesaid application was contested by said borrowers and the Bank and, upon due consideration of their contentions, the Tribunal vide its order dated 05.01.2017 (Annexure P-2), directed the District Magistrate, Durg to get the alleged land, held by him, i.e. Lallu Ram, identified first and then demarcate physically with that of the properties held by said borrowers before executing the order dated 23.05.2015 for providing physical possession of the secured assets to the said Bank.

5. In pursuance to the aforesaid direction, the proceeding was initiated and, during the course of the said proceedings, an objection (Annexure P-5) dated 24.07.2019 was raised by the petitioner-Mukesh Kumar, alleging therein, that the part of the land bearing Khasra No.1153/1 admeasuring 0.02 hectare (2500 square feet) was purchased by his father under the registered deed of sale dated 03.11.2008 from Rambagas, Nand Kumar and Ajay Kumar through the Power of Attorney holder, namely, Vinod Kumar Son of Hiru Ram. It appears further that the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar, vide its order dated 23.09.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed in Revenue Case No.RC-51-A/70/2016-17, has held that the vendors of the alleged registered deed of sale dated 03.11.2008 have no alienable interes