[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Urmila Devi vs Vikas Kumar Agrawal on 1 April, 2026

                                                          1




                                                                            2026:CGHC:15034
NIKITA                                                                                 AFR
JAIN
Digitally signed
by NIKITA JAIN                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Date: 2026.04.01
17:57:40 +0530

                                               WPC No. 3810 of 2021
                                              Reserved on 11/03/2026
                                            Pronounced on 01/04/2026

                   Urmila Devi W/o Late Muneshwar Sai, Aged About 66 Years, Caste Kanwar,
                   R/o Village Chetwa, Tahsil Kansabel, District- Jashpur (C.G.)

                   (Non-Applicant No.1)

                                                                                   ... Petitioner

                                                       versus
                   1 - Vikas Kumar Agrawal S/o Brajbhushan, Aged About 39 Years, Caste
                   Agrawal, R/o Village Kunkuri, Tahsil Kunkuri, District- Jashpur (C.G.)
                   (Applicant)

                   2 - Mukesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Ramniwas Agrawal,

                   3 - Radheshyam Agrawal S/o Ramniwas Agrawal,

                   4 - Gouri Shankar Agrawal S/o Manohar Agrawal,

                   5 - Poonam Chandra Agrawal S/o Manohar Agrawal,

                   6 - Umesh Agrawal S/o Manohar Agrawal,

                   The respondents No.2 to 6 belong to Caste Agrawal, R/o Village Kansabel,

District- Jashpur (C.G.)

(Non-Applicants No. 2 to 6)

7 - The Commissioner, Surguja Division (Ambikapur), District- Surguja (C.G.),

8 - The Collector Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.),

9 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.)

... Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate appears along with Shri Sanchit Bhatt, Advocate.

For Respondents No.1 to 6 : Shri B. P. Sharma, Advocate appears along with Shri M. L. Sakat and Ms. Koushiki Kumari, Advocates.

For State/Respondents No.7 to 9 : Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Deputy Advocate General.

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J CAV Judgment

1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner being an aboriginal has

questioned the legality and propriety of the order dated 10.08.2021

passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division (Ambikapur),

Chhattisgarh in Revenue Revision Case No. 202103960100022/29/A-

23/2020-21, whereby the Revisional Court has dismissed the

application filed by the petitioner under Section 170-B of the

Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Code, 1959'), while reversing the order dated 19.02.2021 passed by

the Collector, Jashpur in Appeal Revenue Case

No.201911030100011/6/2019-20 affirming the order dated 04.10.2019

passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bagicha, District

Jashpur in Revenue Case No.13/A-23/14-15 for restoration of the land

in question.

2. The facts, which are essential for adjudication of this petition, are that

the land bearing Khasra No.427/3 and 427/4 admeasuring 0.725

hectare and 0.721 hectare, respectively, total admeasuring 1.446

hectare situated at Village Chetva, Tehsil Kansabel, District Jashpur

was originally held by one Muneshwar Sai (since deceased now

represented by his widow - Urmila Devi), who was the Kanwar by caste

belonging to the aboriginal and, vide registered deed of sale dated

06.03.1973, he had sold the alleged suit land to one Sadhu Sai for a

consideration of Rs.3,000/-, while putting him in possession thereon.

Perusal of the record would reveal further that said Sadhu Sai after

obtaining the permission for its alienation from the Collector, Jashpur

vide order dated 28.06.1974 (Annexure P-3) as required under Section

165(6) of the Code, 1959, sold it to one Manohar Lal

Agrawal, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, by executing a

registered deed of sale dated 18.07.1974 for a consideration of

Rs.3,500/- and, the revenue papers were, accordingly, recorded in his

name, who, then applied for partition while approaching the court of

Nayab Tehsildar, Jashpur, where the said authority vide its order dated

11.07.1980 has divided the land in question amongst his heirs.

3. The aforesaid transaction made in favour of said Sadhu Sai was held to

be benami at the instance of said Manohar Lal Agrawal, and therefore,

the transaction made in his (Manohar Lal Agrawal) favour on

18.07.1974 was, accordingly, held to be a fraudulent one in an enquiry

held by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bagicha under Section

170-B of the Code, 1959 based upon the application moved by said

Muneshwar Sai on 23.01.2015 and, the order as passed by the said

authority on 04.10.2019 was affirmed further by the Collector, Jashpur

vide its order dated 19.02.2021 in an appeal preferred by respondent

No.1 - Vikas Kumar Agrawal.

4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, a revision was preferred by

respondent No.1 before the Commissioner, Surguja, who, in turn, vide

its order impugned has reversed the aforesaid order and, being

aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is

the widow of said Muneshwar Sai, the erstwhile owner of the land in

question.

5. Shri Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner/aboriginal submits that the finding recorded by the

Commissioner, Surguja holding that the alleged transactions are not

benami, while reversing the order of the Collector, Jashpur affirming the

findings of the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), is apparently contrary

to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by

the petitioner/aboriginal and her witnesses recorded before the court of

Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) has not been scanned in its proper

manner and, thereby erred in holding that the alleged transaction is a

valid one. Further of his contention is that the predecessor-in-interest of

the respondents, namely, Manohar Lal Agrawal had, in fact, purchased

the alleged land for his own benefit, while forwarding to said Sadhu

Sai, therefore, the Sub Divisional Officer as well as the Collector,

Jashpur after considering the evidence of the petitioner/aboriginal and

her witnesses has concurrently held the alleged transaction to be a

benami one, which ought not to have been disturbed by the

Commissioner, Surguja, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. In

support, he placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by the

Supreme Court in the matter of Bhaiji vs. Sub-Divisional Officer,

Thandla And Others reported in (2003) 1 SCC 692.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing fo the respondents,

while inviting attention towards the application dated 23.01.2015, made

by said Muneshwar Sai, submits that since said aboriginal was in need

of money and was searching for a purchaser, therefore, said Manohar

Lal Agrawal in order to help him, got the alienation of his land in favour

of said Sadhu Sai while producing himself to be one of the witnesses of

the transaction made in his favour on 06.03.1973. As such, it cannot be

said that while forwarding him (Sadhu Sai), he had purchased the land

in question benami in his name for his own benefit. While placing

reliance upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the

matter of Khora (Dead) through legal heirs and others vs. Mohar

Sai and Others reported in (2023) 14 SCC 767 submits further that the

Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to examine the issue of

benami, therefore, neither the alleged transaction made in favour of

said Sadhu Sai was a benami one, nor could it be held to be benami by

the said Revenue Authorities. The order impugned passed by the

Commissioner, Surguja, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity, so

as to call for any interference in this petition.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the

entire record carefully.

8. Admittedly, one Muneshwar Sai, the husband of the petitioner, was the

erstwhile owner of the land in question bearing Khasra No.427/3 and

427/4 admeasuring 0.725 hectare and 0.721 hectare, respectively, total

admeasuring 1.446 hectare situated at Village Chetva, Tehsil Kansabel,

District Jashpur. The alleged land held by him was purchased by one

Sadhu Sai from him, who was also the aboriginal, under the registered

deed of sale dated 06.03.1973 for a consideration of Rs.3,000/- and

the revenue papers were, accordingly, recorded in his name, who after

sometime, i.e., on 06.07.1973, moved an application before the

Collector, Jashpur seeking permission to alienate the alleged land to

said Manohar Lal Agrawal, the non-aboriginal, under Section 165(6) of

the Code of 1959. In the said proceeding, a report, dated 23.02.1974

was submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), before the

Collector, Jashpur opining the prevailing rate of the land in question,

which is "Tand" in nature, to be Rs.364/- per acre and, the sale

consideration for alienation of the land in question was, thus, opined to

be justified as it was more than the prevailing rate and, upon its due

consideration, the permission was accorded by the Collector, Jashpur

vide its order dated 28.06.1974 in the said proceeding registered as

Revenue Case No.211/A-21/1972-73 and, thereafter, he (Sadhu Sai)

sold the alleged land to him under the registered deed of sale dated

18.07.1974. After acquiring the land in question as such, he, then,

applied for its partition and was partitioned, accordingly, amongst his

sons, namely, Ramniwas Agrawal, Gauri Shankar Agrawal, Poonam

Chandra Agrawal and Umesh Agrawal by the Nayab Tehsildar, Jashpur

vide its order dated 11.07.1980.

9. After the afflux of four decades, an application was made by said

erstwhile owner - Muneshwar Sai before the Sub Divisional Officer

(Revenue) on 23.01.2015 under Section 170-B of the Code of 1959 for

restoration of the land in question with the allegation that said Manohar

Lal Agrawal, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, the non-

aboriginal, while forwarding said Sadhu Sai, the aboriginal, had

purchased his land under the registered deed of sale dated 06.03.1973

at Jashpur in his presence and his known witness, namely, Sone Sai,

who was the resident of a different Village, i.e., Village Jumaikela and

got the revenue papers recorded in his (Sadhu Sai) name, while

retaining the possession to himself and, thereafter got the registered

deed of sale dated 18.07.1974 in his name after obtaining the sanction

from the Collector, Jashpur vide order dated 28.06.1974 passed in

Revenue Case No.211/A-21/1972-73 and obtained the revenue papers

recorded in his name. It was, thus, alleged by him that while forwarding

him (Sadhu Sai) as such, he succeeded to get the registered deed of

sale executed in his favour fraudulently and, therefore, entitled to get it

restored.

10. In response to the aforesaid application, it was stated by the

respondents that the alleged land was not purchased by their

predecessor-in-interest, namely, Manohar Lal Agrawal benami while

forwarding said Sadhu Sai, as alleged by the petitioner and instead, he

had purchased the same from him on 18.07.1974 for a consideration of

Rs.3,500/- only after due permission of the Collector as required under

Section 165(6) of the Code, 1959. It is, therefore, contended that the

application as framed much after the period of 40-41 years, deserves to

be rejected.

11. In order to consider the aforesaid allegation, it is necessary to examine

the said application, made on 23.01.2015, which reads in its verbatim

as under:-

U;k;ky; Jheku~ vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh egksn; dkalkcsy] ftyk&t'kiqj ¼N-x-½

mfeZyk nsoh ifr Lo- equs'oj lk;] mez 61 o"kZ] tkfr daoj fuoklh& psVok rglhy dkalkcsy ftyk&t'kiqj ¼N-x-½ cuke jkefuokl vxzoky firk Lo- euksgj yky vxzoky ,oa vU; 3

lHkh fuoklh dkalkcsy] rglhy&dkalkcsy ftyk&t'kiqj ¼N-x-½ vukosndx.k vkosnu i= vUrxZr /kkjk 170 ¼[k½ N-x- Hkw&jktLo lafgrk vkosnd Jheku~ ls fuEu fuosnu djrk gS%& 01 ;g fd vkosnd ,oa vukosndx.k mijksDr nf'kZr irs ds LFkk;h fuoklh gSaA 02 ;g fd xzke & psVok] i-g-ua- &90 jk-fu-ea-&dkalkcsy] fodkl[k.M dkalkcsy rglhy& dkalkcsy] ftyk&t'kiqj ¼N-x-½ esa vkosnd ds uke ls [k-ua- 427 jdkc 3-253 gS Hkwfe] Hkwfe Lokeh gd dh Hkwfe fLFkr FkhA 03 ;g fd vkosnd daoj tkfr dk gS tks vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds Js.kh esa vkrs gSaA 04 ;g fd vukosndx.k ds firk rFkk vukosnd dz- 4 ds nknk Lo- euksgj yky vxzoky Qjojh 1973 esa vkosnd ds ikl vk;k vkSj dgk fd vki yksx xkSafV;k gS bruh tehu D;k djsaxs jksM fdukjs dh tehu tks [k-ua- 427 jdck 3-253 gS] Hkwfe gedks ns nhft, ge vki dk uke djsaxsA 05 ;g fd vukosndx.k ds firk rFkk nknk Lo- euksgj yky vxzoky ds dgus ij vkosnd us vukosndx.k ds firk euksgj yky vxzoky ls dgk eSa daoj tkfr dk fuoklh gwaA vki xSj vkfnoklh gS] vki esjh tehu dSls ys ldrs gSaA jftLVªh esjh tehu dk vkids uke ls ugha gks ldrk gS] vr% eq>s ekQ dhft,A 06 ;g fd vkosnd ds ifjokj esa iSls dh vko';drk gksus ds dkj.k og iSls ds fy, b/kj&m/kj iSls dk ryk'k dj jgk Fkk] blh chp irk yxus ij vukosnd.k ds firk Lo- euksgj yky vxzoky xzke psVok ds fuoklh lk/kw lk;

tks vkfnoklh gS] dks lkeus dj mDr Hkwfe equs'oj lk; ls dz; djok dj iathd`r fodz;ukek fnukad 06-03-1973 dks t'kiqjuxj esa vius xokg] lksu lk; tks xzke tqebZdsyk dk jgus okyk gS rFkk nwljk xokg Lo;a cudj mDr iathd`r cSukek fu"ikfnr djk;kA 07 ;g fd vukosndx.k ds firk Lo- euksgj yky vxzoky lk/kq lk; dks lkeus djds equs'oj lk; daoj dh tehu dks tks fd vkfnoklh gS dks dz; djok;k rFkk dz; djokus ds i'pkr~ Lo;a [kpZ dj vukosndx.k ds firk Lo- euksgj yky vxzoky equs'oj dh tehu ij jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa equs'oj dk uke dVokdj Hkwfe esa lk/kq lk; dk uke ntZ djok;k rFkk mijksDr Hkwfe ij viuk dCtk cuk;s j[kkA 08 ;g fd vukosndx.k ds firk Lo- euksgj yky vxzoky [k-ua- 427 jdck 3- 253 gS Hkwfe ij lk/kq lk; dk uke gksus dk ykHk mBkrs gq, rFkk f[kyk fiykdj lk/kq lk; dks vius i{k esa djrs gq, rFkk iSls nsdj fnukad 06-07- 1973 dks lk/kq lk; ls ,d vkosnu Hkwfe fcdzh xSj vkfnoklh dks djus ds laca/k esa vkosnu i= U;k;ky; dysDVj jk;x<+ ¼e-iz-½ ds ;gka izLrqr djok;k tks

jktLo izdj.k dz- 211@v&21@1972&1973 gSA 09 ;g fd fnukad 28-06-1976 dks dysDVj ls vuqefr feyus ds i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe vukosndx.k ds firk Lo- euksgj yky vxzoky lk/kq lk; ls fnukad 18- 07-1974 dks iathd`r fodz; i= ds ek/;e ls vius uke ij djkdj jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa vius uke ls ukekarj.k djk fy;k gSA 10 ;g fd vukosndx.k ds firk Lo- euksgj yky vxzoky vius i{k esa mDr Hkwfe dk [kkrk foHkktu djus gsrq uk;c rglhynkj t'kiqj ds U;k;ky; esa vkosnu izLrqr fd;k tks izdj.k dz- 03@v&27@1979&80 gS ftlesa fnukad 11-07-1980 dks uk;c rglhynkj }kjk vkns'k djus ds i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dk [kkr foHkktu vukosndx.k dz- 1] 2] 3 rFkk 4 vukosndx.k ds firk vkse izdk'k vxzoky ds i{k esa [kkrk foHkktu gqvkA 11 ;g fd mDr Hkwfe vukosndx.k dz- 1] 2] 3 rFkk 4 ds firk vkse izdk'k vxzoky ds uke ij jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa 30-07-1980 dks ntZ fd;k x;k gSA 12 ;g fd vukosndx.k ds firk Lo- euksgj yky vxzoky ds }kjk diV iwoZd ,oa "kM;a= jpdj rFkk Ny ls vkosnd equs'oj lk; daoj vkfnoklh ls mDr Hkwfe vius uke djus ds i'pkr~ vius iq=ksa ds uke vFkkZr vukosndx.k dz- 1] 2] 3 rFkk 4 ds firk vkse izdk'k vxzoky ds uke ij djk;k x;k gSA 13 ;g fd mDr Hkwfe dk gLrkarj.k vkfnoklh ls xSj vkfnoklh dk gksuk 170 ¼[k½ N-x- Hkw&jktLo lafgrk ds vUrxZr vkrk gSA 14 ;g fd vkosnd mDr Hkwfe dks okil ysuk pkgrk gSA 15 ;g fd vkosnd vius vkosnu i= ds lkFk [kljk ikap'kkyk lu 1972&73 ,oa iathd`r fodz;ukek fnukad 06-03-1973 rFkk iathd`r fodz;ukek fnukad 18-07-1974 U;k;ky; dysDVj jk;x<+ ¼e-iz-½ dk vkns'k fnukad 28-06- 1974 dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi layXu dj jgk gSA vr% Jheku ls fuosnu gS fd vkosnu i= Lohdkj dj mDr Hkwfe vkosnd dks dCtk okil fnykus dk vkns'k iznku djus dh n;k gksA LFkku dkalkcsy vf/koDrk okLrs vkosnd fnukad 23-01-2015 vkosnd

12. It is, thus, alleged, as reflected from a bare perusal of the aforesaid

application that since the said aboriginal - Muneshwar Sai was in need

of money, therefore, upon knowing the said fact, the predecessor-in-

interest of the respondents, namely, Manohar Lal Agrawal, while

forwarding said Sadhu Sai had purchased his land benami under the

registered deed of sale, dated 06.03.1973 though the possession was

retained by himself and, thereafter, got it purchased from him under the

registered deed of sale, dated 18.07.1974 after obtaining the

permission of its alienation from the Collector, Jashpur vide order,

dated 28.06.1974.

13. An enquiry based upon the aforesaid allegation was conducted by the

Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) under Section 170-B of the Code,

1959, where the petitioner - Urmila Devi, in her evidence, has

specifically stated that said Manohar Lal Agrawal had come in

possession over the alleged land only after its purchase from said

Sadhu Sai. The relevant admission to this effect reads as under:-

................... ;g dguk lgh gS fd lk/kq lk; ls euksgj yky vxzoky mDr tehu dz; djus ds ckn dCtk euksgj yky yksx djus yxsA**

14. In view of the aforesaid admission, it is, thus, evident that he came in

possession over the alleged land only after its purchase from said

Sadhu Sai and, had not come over it when his vendor - Sadhu Sai had

purchased the same from her husband, as alleged in the said

application filed under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 and, as was

observed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bagicha, vide its

order dated 04.10.2019 (Annexure P-4), affirmed by the Collector,

Jashpur vide its order dated 19.02.2021 in an appeal preferred by

respondent No.1. The observation of the said revenue authorities,

therefore, cannot be held to be sustainable in view of the specific

admission of said Urmila Devi, the widow of said aboriginal-

Muneshwar Sai.

15. Moreover, as revealed from the proceeding held under sub-section (6)

of Section 165 of the Code, 1959, as observed herein-above, the

prevailing rate of the land in question was found to be Rs.364/- per

acre and only after considering the adequacy of the sale consideration,

permission to alienate the land in question was accorded by the

Collector, Jashpur to said Sadhu Sai vide order, dated 28.06.1974 and

only thereafter, the registered deed of sale dated 18.07.1974 was

executed in his (Manohar Lal Agrawal) favour for a consideration of

Rs.3,500/-, i.e., more than a consideration what was assessed in the

said proceeding, which has already attained its finality by efflux of time.

16. In view of such circumstances, it is, thus, evident that the alleged sale

was made upon due consideration of the price of the land in question

and, it cannot be said that any kind of fraud was committed by said

Manohar Lal Agrawal with the said erstwhile owner of the land in

question at the time of execution of the registered deed of sale made in

favour of said Sadhu Sai, or could it be held to be benami, as alleged in

the said application.

17. Be that as it may, the aforesaid Revenue Authorities were not

competent enough to hold the alleged transaction as a benami, as the

issue to consider the same is beyond its jurisdiction in view of the

principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Khora

(Dead) through legal heirs and others vs. Mohar Sai and Others,

reported in (2023) 14 SCC 767. As in the said case, a suit was

instituted by respondent No.1/plaintiff, an aboriginal, seeking

declaration of title and injunction based upon a deed of sale, dated

02.04.1981, said to have been executed in his favour by an aboriginal.

It was contested by the appellants/defendants on the ground that the

alleged sale, though purchased in his (plaintiff) name, but was a

benami one, as the same was executed for the benefit of his master,

who was not a tribal and, the alleged transaction was held to be as

such, i.e., a benami transaction, by the Revenue Authorities which has

attained its finality. In that factual scenario, a question was, therefore,

raised therein, that the claim as made was not only barred by

jurisdiction under Section 257 of the Code, 1959, but would also be hit

by the principles of res judicata. The defence, so raised, was turned

down by the Supreme Court on the ground that the Revenue

Authorities have no jurisdiction to hold the alleged transaction to be a

benami one and, the civil court cannot be held to be barred by

jurisdiction to entertain the authenticity of the alleged transaction. The

relevant observations made therein at paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 read as

under:-

"7. ..................Admittedly Respondent 1 who filed the suit on the strength of the sale deed executed in his favour was also a tribal person. In such circumstances, the question as to whether Respondent 1 was only the ostensible owner and not the beneficial owner could not have been gone into by the Revenue Authorities. It is true that under Section 165(6-c), the Collector is entitled to go into the question whether the transaction is spurious or benami. But the power conferred by Section 165(6-c) is to be exercised while passing an order under sub-section (6-a), granting or refusing to grant permission or under sub-section (6-

b), ratifying or refusing to ratify the transaction. Such a power is not expressly extended to avoidance of transfers under Section

170."

"8. .....................An attempt was made by the appellants

herein to show that the transaction was hit by the benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988. That was also rejected by the trial court. Since all these questions could not have been gone into by the Revenue Authorities, the findings recorded by them could not have operated as res-judicata."

"9. ...............The question whether the purchase by a tribal was a sham and nominal transaction for the benefit of a non- tribal, may not fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Authorities......."

18. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme court in the above

referred matter, the findings recorded by the said Revenue Authorities

holding the alleged transaction to be a fraudulent one because it was a

benami, thus, cannot be held to be sustainable in the eye of law and

the Commissioner, Surguja vide its order impugned has, therefore, not

committed any illegality in reversing the same while rejecting the

application filed under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 for restoration

of the land in question.

19. Insofar as the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter

of Bhaiji vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Thandla And Others (supra), as

relied upon by the counsel appearing for the petitioner, is concerned,

the same is, however, of no use as the enquiry was conducted in the