SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 1519

2025:CGHC:9298-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 136 of 2025

1 - Sonsingh S/o Bondku Aged About 71 Years Caste- Dhruwa, R/o Village-

Palli, Tah.- Jagdalpur District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh

2 - Fagnu S/o Shri Sukhram Aged About 61 Years Caste- Dhruwa, R/o Village-

Palli, Tah.- Jagdalpur District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh

3 - Ramsai S/o Shri Sonsingh Aged About 54 Years Caste- Dhruwa, R/o Village- Palli, Tah.- Jagdalpur District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh

4 - Raghunath S/o Shri Sonsai Aged About 52 Years Caste- Dhruwa, R/o Village- Palli, Tah.- Jagdalpur District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh

5 - Govardhan S/o Shri Sonsai Aged About 52 Years Caste- Dhruwa, R/o Village- Palli, Tah.- Jagdalpur District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus

1 - Bholanath Joshi (Dead) Through Lrs Nil

1.a - Premnath S/o Bholanath Joshi Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Kumarwand, Tah.- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh

2 - Banmali (Dead) Through Lrs. Nil

2.a - Khemeshwar Joshi S/o Shri Banmali Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Kumarwand, Tah.- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN

2.b - Shiv Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Banmali Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kumarwand, Tah.- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh

2.c - Vijay Joshi S/o Shri Banmali Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Kumarwand, Tah.- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh

2.d - Dinesh Joshi S/o Shri Banmali Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kumarwand, Tah.- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh

2.e - Smt. Lachani Panigrahi D/o Shri Banmali Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kumarwand, Tah.- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh

2.f - Smt. Geeta Panigrahi D/o Shri Banmali Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Kumarwand, Tah.- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh

3 - Ganesh Prasad S/o Shri Sahdev Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Kumarwand, Tah.- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh

4 - Smt. Radheswari W/o Bholanath Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Kumarwand, Tah.- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh

5 - Vimla Bai Wd/o Banmali Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Kumarwand, Tah.- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh

6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary To The Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Department Of Urban Land Administration Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Ps- Rakhi, Raipur C.G. (Respondent-1)

7 - The Commissioner Through- The Commissioner Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent-2)

8 - The Collector Bastar, District- Bastar (C.G.) (Respondent-3)

9 - The Sub-Divisional Officer District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Respondent-4)

(Revenue)

... Respondents (Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellants : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate along with Mr.

M.L. Saket, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

24/02/2025

1. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellants, who were the respondents No. 5 to 9 in the writ petition, against the impugned order dated 05-12-2024, passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No. 2593 of 2023, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners is allowed, and the order dated 29-05-2023, passed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, in Revenue Case No. 201604950100012/

28/A-23/15-16 is set aside.

2. The brief facts of the case, as emerges from the pleadings and documents of the writ petition as well as writ appeal are that the writ petitioners are claiming that they are the owners of the land bearing Khasra No. 9, 22 and 50, area 10.88 acres, 2.14 acres and 3.15 acres respectively (total area 16.17 acres) situated at village Palli, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar.

Initially, in the year 1937, one Bondku, son of Dodasu Dhurwa, was in occupation of the said land. However, the predecessors of the writ petitioners, namely Sahadev, son of Ramnath Brahmin, came into occupation of the said land in the year 1938-39. Vide order dated 13-01-1937, passed in Case No. 1/84 of 1936, the predecessors of Bondku, son of Dodasu had divested from their rights and thereafter the predecessors of the writ petitioners were granted possession of the land and their names have been recorded in the land records. Since from the year 1938-39, the names of the predecessors have been recorded and they continued in possession of the land and carrying on the agricultural activities over it.

The respondent No. 5 to 9- Sonsingh, Fagnu, Ramsai, Raghunath and Goverdhan have filed an application under Section 170- B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short ‘CGLRC’), before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jagdalpur where the Revenue Case No. 2/A-23/2013-14 was registered and issued notices to the non-applicants/writ petitioners. The non-applicants/writ petitioners have filed their reply to the application of section 170-B of CGLRC and raised objection that their application filed under Section 170-B of CGLRC is not maintainable, as there was no any transaction of the said land between tribal and non-tribal in between the period of 02-10-1959 to 1980. It has also been submitted that the names of the predecessors of the writ petitioners were came in the revenue records in the year

1937 itself.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, after hearing the parties, has dismissed the application filed by the present writ appellants on 22-09-2015 by holding that there is no transaction between tribal and non-tribal in between the period of 02-10-1959 to 1980 and therefore, the provisions of Section 170-B of the CGLRC is not applicable.

The order dated 22-09-2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was challenged by the present writ appellants by filing the First Appeal under Section 44 of CGLRC before the Collector, Bastar, which has been registered as Revenue Case No. 7/A-23/2015-16. After hearing the parties, the Collector, Bastar has also dismissed the First Appeal filed by the present writ appellants vide its order dated 29-02-2016.

Being agreed by the order dated 29-02-2016, the present writ appellants have filed a revision before the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, which was registered as Revenue Case No. 28/A- 23/2016-17. The Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, vide its order dated 18-06-2019, allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jagdalpur and Collector, Bastar and issued a direction to mutate the name of the present writ appellants in the revenue records of the land in question and to take steps for delivery of possession to them. The said order dated 18-06-2019 was challenged by the writ petitioners before this Court by filing a WPC No. 2208 of 2019. The said writ petition was decided by learned Single Judge of this Court on 04-11-2022 and the order passed by Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagd

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top