Order on Board

10.10.2022 Heard.

1) This petition is filed against the order dated 20.11.2017 passed by the Board of Revenue in Case No. 5A/70 of 2014-15 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Division Durg has been affirmed.

2) The case in nutshell is that an application under Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code was moved pertaining to survey Nos. 7 & 9 admeasuring 2.50 acres situated in village Kanharpuri, Tehsil Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon on 6.6.2014 by the petitioner herein against respondent No.3. On 16.6.2014, respondent No.3 marked his appearance before the Tehsildar and thereafter, the case was fixed for hearing on 26.6.2014 but respondent No.3 did not appear on that date therefore, he was proceeded ex parte. Tehsildar recorded the evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses and passed the final order on 9.3.2015 by allowing the application moved by the petitioner.

3) Respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue against the order of Tehsildar and vide order dated 25.6.2015, the appeal was dismissed, against which, he preferred second appeal before the Additional Commissioner and vide order dated 23.2.2016, the same was allowed on the ground that the Tehsildar has not complied with the provisions of Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code and Rules made therein. The petitioner preferred the revision before the Board of Revenue against the order of the Additional Commissioner and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2017 against which, this petition has been filed.

4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a reasoned order was passed by the Tehsildar and no sufficient ground was outlined before the Additional Commissioner and thus, the Additional Commissioner has committed illegality in allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent No.3 and the Board of Revenue erred in affirming the order passed by the Additional Commissioner.

5) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that no opportunity was afforded to him before passing the order by the Tehsildar. Further, the rules framed under Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code have not been complied with and the same has been considered by the Additional Commissioner while allowing the appeal preferred by him and the Board of Revenue has not committed any illegality in dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner.

6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7) Section 129 & 250 of the Land Revenue Code reads as under:

‘129. Demarcation of boundaries of survey number or sub-division or plot number.―(1) The Tahsildar or any other Revenue Officer empowered to act may, on the application of a party interested, demarcate the boundaries of a survey number or of a sub-division or of a plot number and construct boundary marks thereon.

(2) The State Government may make rules for regulating the procedure to be followed by the Tahsildar or any other Revenue Officer empowered to act in demarcating the boundaries of survey number or of a sub-division or of a plot number prescribing the nature of the boundary marks to be used, and authorising the levy of fees from the holders of land in a demarcated survey number or sub-division or plot number.’

250. Reinstatement of bhumiswami improperly dispossessed.―(1) For the purpose of this section and Section 250-A bhumiswami shall include occupancy tenant and Government lessee.

(1-a) lf a bhumiswami is dispossessed of the land otherwise than in due course of law or if any person unauthorisedly continues in possession of any land of the bhumiswami to the use of which such person has ceased to be entitled under any provision of this Code, the bhumiswami or his successor-in-interest may apply to the Tahsildar for restoration of the possession,―

(a) in case of bhumiswami belonging to a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub-

section (6) of