Ashwani Kumar Bandhe vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the Order dated 11.7.2018 passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Revenue Case No.M/05/R/A-74/57/2013 in the matter of Samaru Vs. Chhattisgarh State and Others.

The whole dispute revolves around the property that situates in Khasra No.200, measuring 31.03 acres of which the claim of the Petitioner and dispute with the Respondent No.6 is in respect of the land which falls in Khasra No.200/3, measuring 10.66 acres, situated at Village Ramchandi, District Raipur.

The Petitioner as also the Respondent No.6 claim themselves to be the owner of the aforesaid land by virtue of the inheritance. According to the Petitioner, he has come in possession of the said property by virtue of a gift-deed executed by one Kabilash on 12.1.1942. The said gift-deed made in favour of the father of the Petitioner, Mohanlal Bandhe. Based upon the said gift-deed, a release order of the property was also issued on 24.5.1978.

Whereas, on the contrary, the Respondent No.6 has raised the claim on the said property by virtue of a decree that was passed in 1952 in Civil Suit No.69-A/1954, wherein the property was said to be in the name of Kabilash and Tetki Bai. The Respondent No.6 was in-fact the son of Tetki Bai who is the daughter of the brother of said Kabilash, namely Kapil. The said Kabilash was issue-less. By virtue of the aforesaid decree, he has come in possession of the said property.

The proceedings seem to have been drawn originally on an application moved by Respondent No.6 before the Collector for the correction in the revenue records and also compensation of the said land which, according to the Respondent No.6, at that time was reflected as Government land. The said proceedings commenced in the year 2007. In between, the District Collector vide his Order dated 13.4.2010 rejected the said application on the ground that he does not have the jurisdiction and the jurisdiction stands vested with the Sub Divisional Officer.

Subsequently, the Sub Divisional Officer also refused to entertain the said application on the ground that he too does not have the jurisdiction to hear the case and thereafter the proceedings travelled up to the Board of Revenue from where the impugned Order dated 11.7.2018 now stands passed.

It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the operative part of the impugned Order dated 11.7.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue, which for ready reference is reproduced herein under:-

The present Writ Petition has been filed filed only on 13.10.2020 and this Court vide Order dated 20.10.2020 had stayed the effect and operation of the impugned Order dated 11.7.2018 and had also stayed the further proceeding before the Collector. The said Interim Order passed by this Court is still in operation.

One of the primary contention of learned Counsel for Petitioner in assailing the impugned Order is that the Petitioner was not given the opportunity of hearing. He was not noticed in respect of the said proceeding and that he too was a necessary party to the proceeding. However, in spite of having moved an application before the Board of Revenue, the Board of Revenue proceeded to decide the entire case without hearing the Petitioner at all.

What needs to be appreciated at this juncture is that the Board of Revenue had passed impugned the Order on 11.7.2018 and the present Writ Petition has been filed as late as on 13.10.2020 i.e. almost after more than two years of time. In between, the Petitioner is said to have approached the District Collector on 30.9.2020 where the matter stood remanded by the order of the Board of Revenue. According to learned Counsel for Petitioner, though the said objections have not been accepted in the proceedings initiated by Respondent No.6 but the objections were filed at the Dispatch Section in the office of the District Collector and thereafter there has been no further progress made on the said objections also.

Another contention of learned Counsel for Petitioner is that while the matter was pending consideration before the Board of Revenue, the case got dismissed for want of prosecution on 19.5.2015. Thereafter, the Respondent No.6 moved an application for restoration and the matter stood restored on 4.4.2016. However, subsequent to the restoration of the case, the Board of Revenue had never issued any notice to the Petitioner, particularly when the application for impleadment filed by the Petitioner on 1.10.2013 was still pending before the Board of Revenue and which had also been objected too and replied by the Respondent No.6 on 7.7.2014. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the Board of Revenue to have first issued notice to the Petitioner and then to have proceeded further in accordance with law. Learned Counsel for Petitioner thus prays for the matter to be remanded back to the Board of Revenue so that the Petitioner could be heard before a decision is taken by the Board of Revenue.

What needs further appreciation at this juncture is that all that the order of the Board of Revenue has done is setting aside the Order passed by the Collector on 13.4.2010 and remanding it back to the office of the Collector for proceeding further with the matter in accordance with law on its own merits. This, in other words, means that the Board of Revenue as such has not dealt with the merits of the case and has only remitted it back to the District Collector for proceeding further and deciding the case in accordance with law on its own merits.

The pleadings would further reveal that the Petitioner himself already appeared before the District Collector and moved an application on 30.9.2020 and has also entered appearance in the subsequent proceedings that were drawn by the District Collector. However, before any substantial progress could be made by the District Collector in the proceedings, the instant Writ Petition has been filed and an Interim Order has been obtained.

Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, since the grievance of the Petitioner is that the impugned Order passed by the Board of Revenue was without hearing the Petitioner and without giving an opportunity of defence before the Board of Revenue, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of the Petitioner can still be best protected when he has already entered appearance before the District Collector and has also moved an application for impleadment, in that event he can be given an opportunity of hearing before the original Authority itself. That since now the matter stands remitted back to the District Collector, the present Writ Petition at this juncture in its present form deserves to be and is accordingly disposed of directing the District Collector to proceed further in accordance with law as directed by the Board of Revenue and decide the case on its own merits.

While deciding the case, the District Collector shall consider the application that the Petitioner has filed so far as his impleadment is concerned. The District Collector shall also consider whether the Petitioner has any claim, weather the Petitioner has any right and whether the Petitioner has any locus in the dispute and the disputed property. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, let the District Collector decide the case in accordance with law, on its own merits, at the earliest, preferably within a period of four months.

Since the Writ Petition is getting disposed of, the Interim Order passed in the present Writ Petition stands vacated and merged with the final Order.

Writ Petition stands partly allowed and disposed of accordingly.