Order on Board

24.06.2021

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been brought praying to quash/ set aside the order dated 13.8.2013 in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N./14/R/A-6/282/2012 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur; order dated 28.4.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur in Revenue Appeal Case No.293/A-6/2011-12; order dated 12.11.2010 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur in First Revenue Appeal case and seeking a direction to restore the order dated 30.1.2010 passed by Tehsildar, Raipur in Revenue Case No.08/A-

6/year 2009-2010.

2. It is submitted by the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner No.1 – Smt. Shagufta Nasreen and respondent No.1 – Smt. Nighat Parveen are daughters of petitioner No.2 – Mohd. Ismail Sheikh. Petitioner No.2 made a gift of land bearing khasra No.1055/4 measuring area 0.108 hectares situated in Patwari Halka No.110/40, village Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Tahsil and District Raipur to petitioner No.1 by a hibanama dated 21.8.2009. As the petitioners and respondent No.1 are muslims, who are governed by Hanifi School of Mohammaden law, in which oral hibanama is permissible. The gift, so made, has been accepted by respondent No.1. On the basis of hibanama, the property in dispute has been mutated in favour of petitioner No.1 by order dated 30.1.2010 of Tehsildar and the name of petitioner No.1 has been entered in the revenue records.

3. It is also submitted that respondent No.1 has no authority to challenge this order against petitioner No.1. She has challenged the same in revenue first appeal before Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur in which the appeal was allowed by order dated 12.11.2010 and the order of Tehsildar was set aside. The petitioners then preferred second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur, which has been dismissed by order dated 28.4.2012. The order of Additional Commissioner was then challenged before the Revenue Board and by the impugned order dated 13.8.2013, the revision petition of the petitioners has been dismissed.

4. It is submitted by learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.1 had no locus standi to file an appeal in the Revenue Appellate Court. Petitioner No.2 has by a separate hibanama dated 19.1.2002 made a gift of 4,000 sq.ft. land from khasra No.1055/3 to respondent No.1 and similarly, petitioner No.2 has again made a gift of land measuring area of 4,000 sq. ft. to his another son Mohd. Salim Javed, which is also a part of khasra No.1055/3. It is further submitted that learned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) has erroneously allowed the appeal under grave misconception of law and similarly, the orders also have been passed by the Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue. The order of Sub-Divisional Officer, the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue are not sustainable, therefore, a prayer has been made for quashment of these orders.

5. There is no representation from respondent No.1 although she was represented in this petition on earlier dates.

6. Learned State counsel appearing for respondents No.3 to 5 opposes the submissions of the petitioners and submits that no error has been committed by the Revenue Courts of Sub-Divisional Officer, Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, therefore, this petition be dismissed.

7. The key question in this case is whether respondent No.1 has a right to appeal against the order of Tehsildar in favour of petitioner No.1 in Revenue Case No.08/A-6/year 2009-2010 before the Court of Tehsildar, Raipur, where petitioner No.1 was the applicant and petitioner No.2 was the respondent, wherein the order was passed for mutation in favour of petitioner No.1. Although, respondent No.1 had raised objection in the mutation but the same was later on withdrawn by her. Respondent No.1 then filed an appeal under Section 44(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 cla