HEMLAL SAHU Vs. SONAMATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India has been Page No.2 brought seeking indulgence of this Court to quash the impugned order dated 23/08/2014 passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur, the order of the Collector, Raigarh dated 12/03/2014 and the order of SDO, Gharghoda dated 17/12/2013, and also to dismiss the application filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 170 (B) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code').

(2.) It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are in possession of land bearing Khasra No. 520/8, ad-measuring 0.030 hectare. As per revenue record, the title holder of the land is respondent No. 5, who is not a member of schedule tribe. Respondent No. 1 has filed an application under Section 170 (B) of the Code before the SDO (Revenue), Gharghoda (Respondent No.4), in which respondent No. 5 was not the party. This application was disposed of by order dated 17/12/2013 (Annexure-P-6) by allowing the application in favour of respondent No. 1 and directing the dispossession of the petitioner from the disputed property. This order was challenged in the Court of the Collector, Raigarh. This appeal was disposed off by order dated 12/03/2013 (Annexure-P-7), by which the order of SDO, Gharghoda was upheld and the appeal was dismissed. Subsequently, a revision was preferred before the Commissioner, Bilaspur, which was disposed off by order dated 23/08/2014 (Annexure-P-8) and the revision was dismissed.

(3.) It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that present case is not covered under Section 170 (B) of the Code. The another discrepancy present in the case is that there is clear non-joinder of party i.e. respondent No. 5 in all the proceeding which have taken place before the SDO, Collector and Commissioner. It is reflected Page No.3 from the order of SDO dated 17/12/2013 that no enquiry was made and no demarcation was conducted before passing of the order by the SDO, Gharghoda. It is also submitted that Section 170 (B) of the Code does not empower the SDO to pass an order for demolition of construction, therefore, the whole proceeding of the application under Section 170 (B) of the Code is misconceived, illegal and arbitrary. Prayer has been made to grant relief.