GOSWAMI TRIVENI GIRI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Correctness and sustainability of the order passed by learned Single Judge, declining to interfere with the order of the Commissioner, Surguja, District Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh dated 06.08.2018, is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellants' name has been recorded in the revenue records of the lands bearing khata No. 254 ad-measuring 17.802 hectare; khata No. 253 ad-measuring 9.640 hectare; khata No. 251 ad-measuring 14.92 hectare; khata No. 294 ad-measuring 11.62 hectare, are recorded. In the revenue records of the said land, name of Collector, Surguja (Chhattisgarh) was also recorded as Manager/ Administrator along with name of appellants, which made the appellants to file an application before the Additional Tahsildar, Lundra (Dourpur), District Surguja for correcting revenue entries and deleting the name of Collector as Manager/ Administrator from revenue records. The Additional Tahsildar, after proceeding in accordance with law, issuing notice by paper publication, dismissed the application holding that the lands recorded in the name of Goswami Triveni Giri Chela Mahant, Swargiya Giri Pujari Boudh Gaya Math, resident of village Silsila is property of math, State Government has issued a Circular for entering the name of Collector as Manager/ Administrator in the revenue records of the lands given in the name of math (temple) for its proper management and to protect it from illegal sale and encroachment. Order of Tahsildar was put to challenge before the S.D.O. (Revenue) in an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 12.03.2014. Against the order of S.D.O. (Revenue), appellants preferred Second Appeal before the Commissioner, Surguja Division which also came to be dismissed on 06.08.2018. The order passed by Commissioner was put to challenge in writ petition, upon considering the pleadings, documents as well as submissions made by the respective parties, learned Single Judge held that the question of title is involved and liberty was reserved with the petitioners to file civil suit in accordance with law.

(3.) Mr. Anurag Singh, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Courts below committed error in not considering the facts of the case in its entirety. The land in question has been given to the ancestors of the appellants prior to the abolition of jamidari rights. In view of the provisions under Section 158 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short "Code, 1959"), holders of the land have acquired the Bhumiswami Rights, as such, the appellants are owners of the land, it is not a land of math or temple. Properties involved in the litigation are not properties of math and all the Courts below fallen into an error in holding the same and for that reason only, name of Collector as Manager/ Administrator of land has been mutated in the revenue record. Proper opportunity of hearing was not provided in terms of Sections 109 and Section 110 of the Code, 1959, before mutating the name of Collector as Manager/ Administrator in the individual ownership property. The said land is a Mafi land. He also pointed out that as per the Sarguja, State Settlement Record, Annexure P3, name of ancestors has been recorded as owner of property, hence, impugned order requires to be interdicted, submits the learned counsel. In support of his submission, he places his reliance in case of Shrikrishna v. State of M.P. , 2012 4 MPLJ 466 .