Amendments to land revenue legislation confer Bhumiswami rights retrospectively, necessitating compliance for valid land transfers; sales executed without required permissions are null and void.

JUDGMENT :

NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.

1. This is plaintiffs’ second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2011 passed by the learned 5^th Additional District Judge, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 21A/2010 against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2010 passed by the learned First Civil Judge, Class-II, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 130-A/2008 by which the suit filed by the plaintiffs for title and declaration has been dismissed.

2. The parties have been described as per their description before the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 130-A/2008.

3. The second appeal has been admitted by this Court on 01.07.2021 on the following substantial question of law:-

“Whether both the Courts below were justified in holding that the alienation made by defendant No. 1 in favour of plaintiffs is barred by Section 158(3) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 by recording a finding which is perverse to the record?”

4. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that:

(a) The plaintiffs have filed a suit on 05.10.2005 for declaration and permanent injunction before learned Civil Judge, Class-II Bilaspur mainly contending that the plaintiffs have purchased the land from defendant No. 1 situated at village Mohtarai, Patwari Halka No. 14, Rajasv Nirikshak Mandal Bilaspur, Block Bilha, Gram Panchayat Bharari, Tehsil and District - Bilaspur bearing Khasra No. 702/2 area 4.75 acre (hereinafter referred to as “suit property”) through registered sale deed on 24.09.1990 and they are in possession of the suit property.

(b) It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant No. 1 denying the title of the plaintiff for the last one year and creating nuisance infringing peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs which has necessitated them to file a suit. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant No. 1 has denied the possession of the suit property of the plaintiff for the reason that the value of suit property has been increased sharply by denying the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. During pendency of suit plaint was amended and it was contended that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) has no legal right to cancel the title of the plaintiffs vide its order dated 04.09.1991 whose names have been recorded in the revenue records. It has also been contended that the suit property was beyond 5 Km. distance from jurisdiction of Sub-Divisional Officer, therefore, he has no right to inquire in the matter, as such, order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is illegal.

5. The defendant No. 1 has filed his written statement denying the allegations mainly contended that:

(a) The defendant No. 1 is the title holder of the suit property which has been given on lease by the Naib Tehsildar on 24.04.1984 in Revenue Case No. 10-A/79/83-84, a Rin Pustika was also provided and it has also been contended that the defendant No. 1 is in possession of the suit property since 24.09.1984 and the then Revenue Inspector has also recorded his name in the revenue records, therefore, he is entitled to get the decree on the basis of adverse possession. He has also denied that plaintiff No. 1 is doing agricultural work on the said property. But he has admitted that he has given the possession to the plaintiff of the suit property through registered sale deed dated 24.09.1990.

6. The defendant No. 2 filed written statement denying the title and possession of the plaintiff mainly conten