CAV Order

1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging legality and sustainability of the order dated 29.05.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Revision Case No. 201604950100012/28/A-23/15-16 whereby revision preferred by respondents was allowed and respondent No. 2 - Commissioner set-aside the order passed by Collector (respondent No. 3).

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that respondent No. 5 to 9 have submitted an application under Section 170-B of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred as the Code of 1959) before Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jagdalpur (C.G.) seeking reversion of the land description of which are mentioned therein. After receipt of notice, petitioners submitted an objection with regard to maintainability of the application filed under Section 170-B of the Code of 1959 mentioning that provisions under Section 170-B of the Code of 1959 is not applicable to the facts of the case because name of ancestors of petitioners were recorded as owner of land by order dated 13.10.1951 which is prior to the date 02.10.1959. Sub-Divisional Officer, upon considering objection, has dismissed the application filed under Section 170-B of the Code of 1959 vide order dated 22.09.2015 observing that provision under Section 170-B of the Code of 1959 is not attracted. Order of Sub-Divisional Officer was challenged by private respondents in an appeal filed under Section 44 of the Code of 1959 before the Collector- respondent No.3. The Appellate Authority, upon considering submission of respective parties, facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the appeal affirming order passed by Sub- Divisional Officer observing that provision under Section 170B of the Code of 1959 is not attracted. Order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Collector was put to challenge in a revision before the Commissioner, Bastar Division Jagdalpur which came to be decided vide order dated 18.06.2019. Respondent No. 2–Commissioner, taking note of the decision in case of Dhamtaria Laxman vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in Review Petition No.204/2013 dated 05.08.2013, 2014 C.G.R.J. 44 and decision in case of Central Bank of India vs. Lalit Agrawal and others, 2014 C.G.R.J. 46 had allowed the revision and set-aside the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Collector as also order dated 22.09.2015 of Sub-Divisional Officer and further directed to record names of revisioners therein on the land bearing khasra No. 09, 22, 50 total measuring 16.17 acres. Order dated 18.06.2019 passed by Commissioner – respondent No. 2 was challenged by petitioners herein in writ petition bearing W.P.C. No. 2208 of 2019 which was allowed vide order dated 04.11.2022, observing that in review application filed, judgment of Dhamtaria was found to be erroneous and per incuriam and therefore, impugned order passed by the Commissioner relying upon judgment of Dhamtariya case (supra) is not sustainable. Matter was remitted back to Commissioner to decide revision afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to parties in accordance with law within specified time. After receiving the case back in remand, respondent No. 2 –

Commissioner has passed the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that from the documents available on record and contents of order impugned, it is appearing that name of ancestors of petitioners i.e. Shahdev is recorded in revenue records of land in question since 1939–40. He also contended that based on possession of land since 1939-40, name of petitioners were recorded as owner of the land under Madhya Pradesh Krishi Raiyato Aur Kashtkaro (Dwara Visheshadhikaro ke Adheen) Adhiniyam 1950 in the year 1951. He submits that it is not case of private respondents that Shahdev, ancestor of petitioners came in possession of land pursuant to sale of land. Entry of name of ancestor of petitioners in revenue records and further granting rights under the Adhi