Chattisgarh High Court
Ravishankar Yadav vs R.K. Sonkar on 2 September, 2021
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP(227) No. 354 of 2020
Ravishankar Yadav S/o Devdatt Yadav Aged About 53 Years R/o Village
Aodarsakri, Post Gabdi Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. R.K. Sonkar Aged About 50 Years O/o Tahsil Gunderdehi, District -
Balod Chhattisgarh, Presently Residence Tahsil Dondilohara, District
Balod Chhattisgarh.
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Balod, District Balod
Chhattisgarh.
3. Tahsildar Tahsil Office, Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh.
4. Jeevan Patel S/o Dhanau Ram Patel Aged About 50 Years Nayab
Tahsildar, Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh.
5. Panna Lal Sahu Aged About 50 Years (Driver) Office Of Tahsil
Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh.
6. Santosh Kumar Aged About 52 Years Sr. Branch Manager, Bank Of
Baroda Supela Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
7. Pawan Kumar S/o Lakhan Lal Kosta Aged About 42 Years Occupation
Shopkeepar, R/o Village Mohadipat Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Balod
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Rajkumar Pali, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : Shri R.S. Baghel, Advocate.
For the Respondent/ State : Shri Ajay Kumrani, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Order on Board
02.09.2021
Heard.
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
brought being aggrieved by the order dated 16.1.2020 passed by the
Court of Civil Judge, Class-I, Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.
2. The petitioner has filed a civil suit against the respondents praying for
relief of damages and compensation. Respondent No.1 - R.K. Sonkar
is working as Tehsildar in Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Balod, who has
been arrayed as a defendant in his personal capacity. Respondent No.1
moved an application under Order 1 Rule X of the CPC praying for
deleting his name from the plaint as a party, which has been allowed by
the impugned order and a direction was given to the petitioner/ plaintiff
to delete the name of respondent No.1/ defendant No.1.
3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the Revenue Case
No.08/A-6/2015-2016 was pending before the Court of respondent No.1.
It is alleged that respondent No.1 has misused his post and power and
passed an ex-parte order against the petitioner which has caused
damage to the petitioner, therefore, the civil suit has been filed claiming
compensation from respondent No.1 in his personal capacity. The
impugned order passed is erroneous and against the provisions of law,
which is not sustainable. The case-laws cited by respondent No.1
before the Court below are not applicable, therefore, the impugned
order is not sustainable.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposes the petition and the
submissions made in this respect. It is submitted that no error has been
committed by the Court below in passing the impugned order, therefore,
the order is sustainable. Respondent No.1 has performed his duty in
capacity of Tehsildar and the Tehsildar exercises judicial powers,
therefore, respondent No.1 has protection for the duties performed by
him under the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 and also under the
Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.
5. Relying on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Balram and
Another vs. Aswani Kumar Yadav and Another, reported in 2001(2)
M.P.H.T. 330, it is submitted that under Section 3(1) of the Judges
(Protection) Act, 1985, no court shall entertain or continue any civil or
criminal proceeding against a person exercising judicial powers under
the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code and this is also a similar
case, therefore, the petition is without any substance which may be
dismissed.
6. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents present
on record.
7. On perusal of the copy of the claim filed alongwith the petition, it has
been pleaded that respondent No.1 in an arbitrary manner without
following the procedure as provided under the law has passed the
ex-parte order against the petitioner for which the petitioner is aggrieved
and he is praying for compensation against respondent No.1.
8. It is undisputed that respondent No.1 has performed the duties of a
Revenue Court in passing the mutation order in the revenue case
mentioned herein-above and the order may be right or wrong which is
subject to challenge by the party as per the remedy available in the
statute. Section 31 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 very
clearly provides that the Board or the Revenue Officer while exercising
power under this Code or any other enactment for the time being in
force to enquire into or to decide any question arising for determination
between the State Government and any person or between parties to
any proceedings, shall be a Revenue Court.
9. Section 1 of the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 provides as
follows:
'1. Non-liability to suit of officers acting judicially, for
official acts done in good faith, and of officers executing
warrants and orders.--No Judge, Magistrate, Justice of
the Peace, Collector or other person acting judicially
shall be liable to be sued in any Civil Court for any act
done or ordered to be done by him in the discharge of his
judicial duty, whether or not within the limits of his
jurisdiction: Provided that he at the time, in good faith,
believed himself to have jurisdiction to do or order the act
complained of; and no officer of any Court or other
person, bound to execute the lawful warrants or orders of
any such Judge, Magistrate, Justice of the Peace,
Collector or other person acting judicially shall be liable
to be sued in any Civil Court, for the execution of any
warrant or order, which he would be bound to execute, if
within the jurisdiction of the person issuing the same.'
10. Similarly Sections 2 & 3 of the Judges Protection Act, 1985 provides as
follows:
'2. Definition.--In this Act, "Judge" means not only every
person who is officially designated as a Judge, but also
every person--
(a) who is empowered by law to give in any legal
proceeding a definitive judgment, or a judgment which, if
not appealed against, would be definitive, or a judgment
which, if confirmed by some other authority, would be
definitive; or
(b) who is one of a body of persons which body of
persons is empowered by law to give such a judgment as
is referred to in clause (a).
3. Additional protection to Judges.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law
for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of
sub-section (2), no court shall entertain or continue any
civil or criminal proceeding against any person who is or
was a Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done
or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting or
purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial
duty or function.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall debar or affect in any
manner the power of the Central Government or the State
Government or the Supreme Court of India or any High
Court or any other authority under any law for the time
being in force to take such action (whether by way of civil,
criminal, or departmental proceedings or otherwise)
against any person who is or was a Judge.'
11. The illegality, the arbitrariness or the error in finding of an authority
acting as a Court is subject to challenge and in appeal or in revision as
may be the remedy provided in the enactment. Further, looking to the
protection available to the officer acting in judicial capacity in
performance of his official duty, the status of such a public officer
functioning as a Court, has been discussed in the case of Balram and
Another vs. Aswani Kumar Yadav and Another (supra). As there is a
clear protection given to the officer acting judicially, the civil suit against
respondent No.1 on the basis of the act done by him in an official
capacity, cannot be entertained. Therefore, I do not find any error in the
impugned order, hence, this petition is dismissed and disposed of at
motion stage.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
Nimmi
