MARSA BAXLA Vs. NEERA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the correctness and validity of order dated 31/01/2005 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby, the Board of Revenue has affirmed the order passed by the Subordinate Revenue Courts directing return of land to respondent-Neera under Section 170(B) of the Land Revenue Code. Brief factual matrix necessary for adjudication of claim of the petitioners as stated in the petition is that the land in dispute originally belonged to one Jagatram, father of Neera and Chandrawati. A sale deed was executed by Jagatram in favour of Piyush Baxla (husband of the petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioners No. 2 to 5) on 25/04/1987 by which an agricultural land admeasuring one acre was sold for a consideration of Rs. 4,000/-. Jagatram died in the year 1996. Thereafter, on 11/09/2000. The respondents Neerabai and Chandrawati moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer praying for a direction to return the land allegedly sold by their father Jagatram to Piyush Baxla stating that no sale transaction had taken place and the respondent-Gouribai had fraudulently grabbed the land under a benami transaction of sale by Jagatram in favour of Piyush Baxla. After allowing the non-applicants there in to file reply and recording evidence, the Sub-Divisional Officer came to the conclusion that the transaction of sale was an outcome of fraudulent design and directed return of land. The order was challenged in appeal before the Collector. Though, the Collector upheld finding with regard to fraudulent transaction, remanded the matter to make necessary enquiry with regard to legal representatives of the deceased Jagatram. Aggrieved by order of the Collector, a revision was preferred by the petitioner alongwith Gauribai which has also been dismissed giving rise to this petition.

(2.) Assailing correctness and validity of impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the Revenue Courts have completely misdirected themselves in holding the transaction as fraudulent ignoring that for well over 9 years when Jagatram was alive, no complaint was made to anyone. He further submits that there is no material collected during enquiry by the Sub-Divisional Officer to come to the conclusion that the consideration paid was highly disproportionate and inadequate so as to draw inference of grabbing of land under the garb of sale deed. He further submits that the widow and two sons namely Ramsingh and Keshavram never raised any dispute nor supported the case of the respondents in proceedings under Section 170(B). Merely because at the time of enquiry, Gauribai was found maintaining the property and cultivating the land as power of attorney holder of Piyush Baxla, it cannot be held that the entire transaction was fraudulent.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 submits that in order to come to the conclusion that the transaction was fraudulent in nature, the Courts below have taken into consideration that the agricultural land is being cultivated by Gauri who is a non tribal. Piyush Baxla does not come to cultivate the land and he is said to be working at different place at Vishakhapatnam and sometimes at Village - Kachabari, Tahsil-Chhota Nagpur, Ranchi and he is not permanently residing in the village but mostly stays elsewhere. In his submission, these established circumstances are sufficient to draw an inference of fraudulent transaction. It is also submitted that no permission under Section 165(6) of C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 was taken which also is a circumstance leading to inference of fraudulent transaction. Therefore, there is no perversity or illegality in the orders passed by the Revenue Courts.