Bisundhari v. Suksi Bai And Others

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR SA No. 19 of 2003 Bisundhari S/o. Phajihat, Aged about 56 years, Caste- Aheer, R/o. VillageBhadia, Ph. No. 11 RI. Circle Sanna, Tah, Bagicha, District. Jashpurnagar, Chhattisgarh.

----Appellant

Versus

1. Suksi Bai W/o. Late Uchitnarayn, aged about 69 years,

2. Mu. Maniyari Bai W/o. Late Uchitnarayan, aged about 64 years,

3. Maankunwar Bai W/o. Late Uchitnarayan, aged about 52 years.

4. Pradeep Narayan, S/o. Shri Ajit Narayan, but wrongly mentioned as Uchitnarayan, aged about 26 years.

5. Udainarayan (sicne died) representated thrgouh his Lr's.

6. Sarva Narayan S/o. Late Uchitnarayan, Aged about 36 years.

7. Vranda Narayan S/o. Late Shri Uchitnarayan, aged about 25 years. All by Caste Baghel kchatriya, R/o. Village Harradipa, Tahsil Bagicha, District. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

8. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Jashpurnagar. ---- Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant :

Mr. R. K. Jain, Advocate For State :

Mr. A.N. Bhakta, Dy. AG.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 07/01/2019.

1. Plaintiff/appellant filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and for declaring the order dated 30.12.1995 (Ex.P-1) passed by the Sub-Division Officer Revenue reverting the land in favour of the defendants under Section 170B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 is illegal and bad in law. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that plaintiff has failed to prove that order of the S.D.O dated

30.12.1995 is null and void, which has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court in appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that both the Courts below have erred in holding that order dated 30.12.1995 is in accordance with law.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff on the question of admission.

4. The S.D.O by order dated 30.12.1995 held that the transfer is hit by Section 170B of C.G Land Revenue Code, 1959 which the plaintiff did not question it by way of appeal before any higher authority and allowed the order to be final. While considering this question in the matter of Section 170-B of the Code Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dhumaniya Vs. Harisingh and others1, reported in Revenue Niryana, held as under:- "22. The civil Court has gone into the questions which were required to be decided by the SDO and as a matter of fact, decided by the SDO. The matters which are required to be decided by the SDO are not final as against the order of the SDO there is further appeal and revision provided under the Code. The orders thus passed are final and the jurisdiction of civil Court is barred u/s. 257(1-1) of the Code.

Thus, the Courts below could have seen only to the extent whether basic fundamental principles of the judicial process have been followed or not by the competent authority passing the order and the jurisdiction of the civil court is limited as laid down in the case of Dhulabhai (supra) and case must fall within the parameter of the tests mentioned in para 19 of this order. The Courts below have not considered the material such as the voters list which was referred to by the SDO and also the lease deed filed by the respondent, granted to Luraiya Sahariya."

5. In view of settled legal position that despite the bar created under section 257(1)(L-1) of the Code against orders passed by the Revenue Authorities under section 170-A and 170-B of the Code in their exclusive jurisdiction, even then the civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and consider the matter up to the extent whether the authority concerned has complied with the prescribed procedure or not, while holding the enquiry and passing the order. But such jurisdiction is limited as laid down in the case of Dhulabhai (supra) followed in Dhumaniya (supra). Thus, the civil Court cannot consider the questions decided by such revenue authorities on merits under their exclusive jurisdiction. Thus, it is held that the civil Court has limited jurisdiction to entertain such suit upto the aforestated extent

6. Reverting to the facts of the case, the plaintiff is seeking to consider the merits of the order 30.12.1995 passed by the S.D.O since, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 170B of the Code as to whether the matter is covered under Section 170B of the Code, Civil Court is only to look into the matter whether the authority concerned has complied with the prescribed procedure or not.

7. In the present case, the plaintiff's case is that the provision contained in Section 170-B of the Code is not at all attracted in the facts of the present case and thereby the plaintiff is seeking to consider merits of the order dated 30.12.1995 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 170-B of the Code. Since jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 257(1) (L-1) of the Code as the matter is covered by the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code, the civil Court can only look into whether the authority concerned (Sub-Divisional Officer (R.)) has complied with the prescribed procedure or not while holding the enquiry and while passing the order and the jurisdiction of the civil Court is

limited as laid down by the Supreme Court in Dhulabai (supra) and as such, merits of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (R.) cannot be looked into by the civil Court. In view of that, both the Courts below are absolutely justified in holding that order dated 30.12.1995 is in accordance with law. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said finding. No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal for determination.

8. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed in limine. No cost(s). Sd /- (Sanjay K.Agrawal) Judge Jamal