CAV Order

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the correctness of the order dated 20th September 2022 passed by Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in Appeal Case No.215/A-27/17-18 whereby the Commissioner has set aside the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Additional Collector Janjgir Champa as also order dated 09.09.2016 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (R) Sakti, dismissing the application filed by the respondents under Section 170-B of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "Code of 1959").

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that order passed by the Commissioner Bilaspur Division Bilaspur is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and contrary to law applicable to the facts of the case. The Commissioner Bilaspur Division has not taken into consideration the provision under Section 170-D of the Code of 1959 wherein it is specifically provided that second appeal is barred in a proceeding under Section 170-B of Code of 1959. He contended that when Commissioner has passed order in appeal, he is not having jurisdiction to remand back the case to Sub Divisional Officer (R) for rehearing of the case and passing order afresh. Commissioner erred in observing in the impugned order that Sub Divisional Officer (Original Authority) has not complied with the provision of Section 170-B (3) of the Code of 1959. Commissioner has also not taken into consideration the earlier proceeding filed by father of respondents/applicants Bharatlal where also the Sub Divisional Officer (R) considering the facts and circumstances of the case has observed that the provision under Section 170-B of the Code of 1959 is not attracted. He contended that Sub Divisional Officer (R) in the proceeding dated 13.03.1997 as also order dated 09.09.2016 has recorded that the provision under Section 170-B of the Code of 1959 is not attracted. However, the Commissioner has not considered this issue and by only recording that Sub Divisional Officer (R) has not proceeded in accordance with provision under Section 170-B (3) of the Code of 1959, passed impugned order which is not sustainable.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and would submit that order passed by the Commissioner is well reasoned order and calls for no interference. It is based on appreciation of facts and law applicable to the case. He submits that the petitioners failed to show any jurisdictional error in the order impugned. Petitioners have wrongly interpreted the provision of Section 170-B of Code of 1959 and the bar contained therein. Petition is bereft of merits and it be dismissed.

4. I have learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with writ petition.

5. Perusal of the order dated 13.03.1997 (Annexure P-5) would show that revenue proceeding was filed by Chain Singh. In that proceeding, the land subject matter was of kh.no.711 admeasuring 1.12 acres and it was pleaded in the application that the said land was in possession of Rajeshwar Prasad son of Narayan Chandranahu. Sub Divisional Officer (R) while considering the application recorded that the land subject matter of proceeding was recorded in the name of ancestors of non-applicants i.e. Mahesh Ram son of Surit Ram on 02.10.1959 and accordingly dismissed the application observing that provision under Section 170-B of the Code of 1959 is not attracted. Above case was registered as Case No.228/A/28/96-97. Another case was registered as Case No.283- A/23/1996-97 in the name of Chain Singh Vs. Rameshwar Prasad of the land of Village Kamlidih. In this case land subject matter of proceeding was bearing kh.no .703/2, 706, 708, 710 admeasuring s

0.72, 0.54, 0.60, 6.75 acres respectively. Case was registered under provision of Section 170-B of the Code of 1959. In that proceedings the Sub Divisional Officer (R) in para -2 of its order recorded that statement is recorded, land records w