AMRUT LAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 04-03-2020 passed in WPC No. 820/2020 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

(2.) Facts of the case give rise to this appeal are that Respondent 2 has registered a case under Section 170(B) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code,1959 (for short 'the Code'), mentioning therein that the sale deed of land of Tribals has been executed by fake permission. Respondent 2 has conducted an enquiry and passed final order under Section 170(B) of the Act on 29-12-2017 and declared the sale deed executed by Respondent 3 in favour of the appellant of the land bearing Khasra No. 618 admeasuring Rakba 0.13 hectare situated at Village Lahroud, to be null and void. Order of the 2nd Respondent dated 29-12-2017 was put to challenge by the appellant in a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (C) no. 820/2020 which was filed only on 21-02-2020. The writ petition came to be dismissed by an impugned order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge erred in not considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds raised therein in its entirety. It is also contended that the 2nd Respondent is not having the jurisdiction to declare the sale deed to be null and void but it is only for the Civil Court having the jurisdiction to declare the sale deed to be null and void. He also points out that the 3rd Respondent is not a person belonging to the Schedule Tribe community and therefore, the case under Section 170(B) of the Code ought not to have been registered and entertained by the 2nd Respondent. With respect to the reason and the ground on which the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, he submits that there was reason for delay for filing the petition as the certified copy of the order, part of Annexure P-1, passed by the 2nd Respondent, has not been supplied immediately, therefore, the said order could not be challenged within time. He also points out that the appeal is not a proper remedy as it is like "caesar to caesar's wife" because the proceeding before the SDO was without jurisdiction.