State Of Chhattisgarh vs Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 1454 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

State Of Chhattisgarh vs Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh And Anr on 27 January, 2025

                                        1




      Digitally
      signed by
      REKHA SINGH
                                                      2025:CGHC:4644

                                                                 NAFR

                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                               WP227 No. 5025 of 2008

State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Revenue,
D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG)
                                                      ... Petitioner(s)

                             versus
1. The Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Circuit Bench, Raipur
(CG)
2. Aziz Farishta, S/o Shri Abdul Sultan Farishta, Aged about 42 years,
R/o village Deopuri, Tahsil & District- Raipur (C.G.) U
                                                        ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner/State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27.01.2025 Heard.

1. The petitioner/State has challenged the order passed by

respondent No.1/Board of Revenue, Circuit Court, Raipur(C.G.) in

Revenue Case No.M/14/R/B-121/56/2008 dated 22.05.2008 whereby the

application moved by respondent No.2 under Section 8 read with Section

32 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short the Code of

1959') was allowed and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur was

directed to delete the word 'Shamilat Charagan'.

2. The facts of the present case are that the villagers of Village

Deopuri, Patwari Circle No.75, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.) moved

an application for consolidation of their agriculture holding before the

Consolidation Officer, Raipur (C.G.). On 15.04.1991, the Sub-Divisional

Officer (Revenue) passed an order for the consolidation and the lands

comprising Survey No.340 area 14.23 acres, Survey No. 206 area 22.49

acres, Survey No.207 area 0.93 acres, Survey No.318 area 40.76 acres

and Survey No.340 area 2.31 acres situated at Village Deopuri were also

included in the proceedings of consolidation.

3. The villagers of Deopuri including respondent No.2 preferred an

appeal against the order dated 15.04.1991 before the Collector, Raipur.

The Collector Raipur vide order dated 24.04.1992 dismissed the appeal.

Thereafter, a second appeal was preferred before the Commissioner,

Raipur and it was also dismissed on 08.10.1992.

4. Respondent No. 2 and villagers of Deopuri preferred a revision

before the Board of Revenue, Gwalior (MP) and vide order dated

31.12.2001, the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Collector

and the Commissioner were set aside and the revision preferred by the

Villagers of Deopuri was allowed.

5. The Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of

Revenue pursuant to the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated

31.12.2001 directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to comply with the order

and correct the revenue records vide letter dated 13.04.2005.

6. The Sub-Divisional Officer instead of complying with the order

passed by the Board of Revenue and the Secretary, Government of

Chhattisgarh, Department of Revenue passed an order against the

villagers of Deopuri holding that the subject land would remain grass

land in the revenue records.

7. Respondent No.2 approached the Board of Revenue by filing an

application under Section 8 read with Section 32 of the Code of 1959

stating that earlier an order was passed by the Board of Revenue in

favour of the villagers whereby the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue),

Raipur was directed to delete the word 'Shamilat Charagan' and to

restore the names of the villagers. It is also stated that a direction was

issued by the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of

Revenue and the same has also not been complied with. The State was

afforded proper opportunity before the Board of Revenue and vide its

order dated 22.05.2008, the Board of Revenue allowed the application

moved by respondent No. 2 and against that order, the petitioner/State

has preferred this petition.

8. Mr. Vinay Pandey, the learned Deputy Advocate General

appearing for the State would submit that the Board of Revenue

exceeded its jurisdiction while entertaining the application moved by

respondent No.2 under Section 8 read with Section 32 of the Code of

1959. He would further submit that respondent No.2 had an efficacious

statutory remedy to prefer a revision according to the provisions of

Section 50 of the Code of 1959 and a specific objection was raised in

this regard before the Board of Revenue. He would contend that in a

routine manner, the powers conferred under Section 8 read with Section

32 of the Code of 1959 cannot be exercised by any of the revenue

authorities. Mr. Pandey would also submit that a writ petition bearing

W.P. No.5220 of 2007 was filed by respondent No. 2 and other villagers

before this Court seeking a direction for the compliance of the order

passed by the Board of Revenue and the direction issued by the State

Government. He would further argue that in that petition, a liberty was

granted to the petitioners of that petition to prefer a representation before

the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)

Raipur (C.G.) was directed to consider such representation, therefore,

the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) passed the order pursuant to the

order passed by this Court. He would also argue that respondent No. 2

failed to demonstrate any extreme exigency in his application for

exercising power under Section 8 read with Section 32 of the Code of

1959, therefore, the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated

22.05.2008 is illegal and void-ab-initio, therefore, the same is liable to be

quashed. In support of his contentions, Mr. Pandey has placed reliance

on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the

matter of State of Chhattisgarh and others Vs. Pawan Chauhan and

others, WP(227) No.115 of 2013 decided on 23.08.2018.

9. On the other hand, Mr. Paranjpe, the learned counsel appearing

for respondent No. 2 would oppose the submissions made by Mr.

Pandey. He would submit that initially the applications were moved by

the villagers of Deopuri before the Consolidation Officer for Consolidation

of grazing lands. He would further submit that the authority concerned

included the lands of the villagers also in that order, whereas, there was

no such prayer by the villagers in their applications. He would contend

that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 15.04.1991

was challenged before the Collector who dismissed the appeal, and

thereafter before the Commissioner Division, Raipur which was also

dismissed. He would further contend that all those orders were

challenged before the Board of Revenue by the villagers by filing a

revision and that revision was allowed by the Board of Revenue vide

order dated 31.12.2001. He would state that the order passed by the

Board of Revenue attained finality as it was not challenged before any

higher forum. He would further state that a specific direction was issued

by the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Revenue

to comply with the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated

31.12.2001 but the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur again on

16.11.2007 reiterated his earlier order. He would also submit that being

aggrieved by the order and the manner in which the order was passed by

the Sub-Divisional Officer, respondent No. 2 approached the Board of

Revenue by filing an application under Section 8 read with Section 32 of

the Code of 1959 and the same has been allowed. He would further

argue that the power conferred under Sections 8 and 32 of the Code of

1959 can be exercised by the Board of Revenue to secure ends of

justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of law, therefore, the

petition filed by the petitioner/State is misconceived and deserves to be

dismissed.

10. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the documents placed on record.

11. In the matter of Pawan Chauhan (supra), the Coordinate Bench

held that the Board of Revenue has exercised the jurisdiction not vested

in it and exceeded its authority by not only granting permission which has

been conferred to the Collector under Sections 165(6) (ii) and 165(7) of

the Code but also further exceeded the jurisdiction by lifting/relaxing the

ban imposed and by directing the competent authority to furnish 22 point

information and further directing the Deputy Registrar to register the sale

deed. Relevant para 27 is reproduced herein below:-

"27. There is yet another reason for not upholding the order. Even the Board of Revenue has relaxed the ban imposed by the Collector under its jurisdiction. The Board of Revenue has no business to lift the ban imposed by the Collector under the provisions of law, it could have been relaxed by the competent authority, if applied for by the aggrieved person, and in the manner provided under the law. The Board of Revenue has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it and exceeded its authority by not only granting permission which has been conferred to the Collector under Sections 165(6) (ii) and 165(7) of the Code but also further exceeded the jurisdiction by lifting/ relaxing the ban imposed and by directing the competent authority to furnish 22 point information and further directing the Deputy Registrar to register the sale deed. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order passed by the Board of Revenue granting permission under Section 165(6)(ii) of the Code and relaxing the ban deserves to be and is hereby quashed being wholly without jurisdiction and without authority of law. Consequently, registration of sale deed, if any, is also quashed."

Pawan Chauhan (supra) was a case where contrary to the

provisions of Section 165(6) of the Code of 1959, permission was

granted by the Board of Revenue to alienate the property which is

otherwise not permissible. The power is conferred with the Collector

alone to grant such permission and in the cited case, permission was

granted by the Board of Revenue, therefore, the Coordinate Bench held

that the Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction.

In the cited case, respondent No. 4 whose predecessors were

parties to the earlier proceeding, filed an application under Section 8

read with Section 32 of the Code of 1959 before the Board of Revenue.

Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the facts of the cited case are

distinguishable from the facts of the present case.

12. In the present case initially, an order was passed on 31.12.2001 in

favour of the villagers of Deopuri to restore the lands of the villagers in

their own names. It was not challenged before any superior forum.

13. The Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of

Revenue also directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to comply with the

order passed by the Board of Revenue but the Sub-Divisional Officer

again passed the order stating that the lands of the villagers would

remain as 'grass land' and the revenue records cannot be corrected.

14. Section 8 of the Code of 1959 reads as under:-

"S.8 -Powers of Superintendence of Board.- The Board shall, in respect of all matters subject to its appellate or revisional jurisdiction, have superintendence over all authorities in so far as such authorities deal with such matters and may call for returns.

15. Section 32 of the Code of 1959 reads thus:-

"S.32.Inherent power of Revenue Courts.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Revenue Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court."

A conjoint reading of Sections 8 and 32 of the Code of 1959 would

make it clear that the revenue courts including the Board of Revenue for

the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court

may take an appropriate decision.

16. In the present case also when the order was passed in favour of

the villagers on 31.12.2001, there was no occasion for the Sub-Divisional

Officer to reiterate its earlier order. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)

Raipur exceeded its jurisdiction by flouting the order passed by the

superior Courts.

17. With regard to the contention made by Mr. Pandey, this Court while

disposing of W.P. No.5220/2007 never directed the petitioner to review

its earlier order. The petitioner was only directed to consider the

representation as the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur failed to

comply with the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated

31.12.2001 and the direction issued by the Secretary, Government of

Chhattisgarh, Department of Revenue. Therefore, the contention made

by Mr. Pandey is misconceived.

18. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion

of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, the

present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha