MOHARLAL SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 24.10.2008 passed by the Board of Revenue in Review Case No. RW/11/R- A-23/65/2007, whereby the Board of Revenue while reviewing its own order dated 23.8.2007 passed in Revision Case No.R.N./11/R-A-23/986/2006 has reversed the order passed by the Additional Collector, Manendragarh in Revenue Case No.5/A-23/2005-06 under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short `the Code') remanding the case to Sub Divisional Officer, Manendragarh and has restored the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Manendragarh dated 25.3.2006, whereby the Sub Divisional Officer, Manendragarh has directed for return of possession of the land to Sumaru Singh and legal representatives of Vishwanath and Hiralal, who have mortgaged the land to co-operative society.

(2.) AS per undisputed facts of the case, Vishwanath and his brother have mortgaged the disputed property to Co-operative Society, Bhalour and have taken the loan, but they have failed to pay the loan, then recovery officer appointed under C.G. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short `the Act, 1960') has sold the land to one Sudhakar Parode on 24.5.1974, Sudhakar Parode has sold the land to Ravel Singh and Ravel Singh has sold the land to present petitioner No.1. Proceeding under Section 170-B of the Code has been initiated by the Sub Divisional Officer, Manendragarh and the Sub Divisional Officer has directed for return of possession to Sumaru Singh and legal representatives of Vishwanath and Hiralal. Same was challenged before the Additional Collector, Manendragarh who has reversed the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Manendragarh, which was challenged before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue by its review order reversed the order passed by the Additional Collector, Manendragarh.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 3 to 6 opposes the petition and submits that the land sold in violation of Section 165 (6) of the Code was fraudulent transaction and no any application or objection was required at the instance of a member of aboriginal tribe and it was duty of the Sub Divisional Officer to hold an inquiry and pass the order for return of possession.