High Court Of ChhattisgarhWP227/641/2011allowed

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Cg Board Of Revenue And ORS.

2017-06-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP (227) No.641 of 2011 State of Chhattisgarh through Sub Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, through its Registrar

2. Ramphal, S/o Shri Kunwar Singh, R/o Hirri, Gondpara, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG)

3. Shri Raghuwanshmani Khairwar, S/o Lalaram Khairwar, R/o Mendra, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (CG) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr.Majid Ali, P.L.

For Respondents No.2 & 3 :

None present though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 28/06/2017

1. By the impugned order, the Board of Revenue has reversed the order of the Collector of Stamps, Bilaspur and determined the market value of the land as ₹ 2 lakhs per acre.

2. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State/petitioner would submit that learned Board of Revenue has reversed the order of the Collector of Stamps, Bilaspur taking the guidelines issued for determining the market value of land of village Mohbhatha, whereas subject property is situated in village Bilha and thereby determined the market value of the land.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, considered his rival submission made hereinabove and also gone

through the record with utmost circumspection.

4. It is true that respondent No.2 has purchased the property situated at village Bilha, whereas the Board of Revenue has reversed the order of the Collector of Stamps on the basis of guidelines issued for determining the market value of land prevalent at village Mohbhatha. The basis of the order passed by the Board of Revenue runs contrary to law as guidelines to determine the market value of the property of other village cannot be taken into account for deciding the market value of the subject land.

5. Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside and the order of the Collector of Stamps, Bilaspur is restored.

6. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge B/-