KISHORE SINGH Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner is to the order dtd. 13/8/2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg, in Revision Case No.14-A-23/2013-14, whereby, the Revisional Authority, while affirming the orders dtd. 27/2/2006 (Annexure P-7) and 30/6/2005 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Additional Collector, Rajnandgaon and the Sub-Divisonal Officer, Dongargarh, respectively, has dismissed the Revision.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, the land in question bearing Khasra No.699/1 admeasuring 3 acres situated at village- Devkatta, Tahsil- Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon was owned by respondent No.6- Gour Singh and others, namely, Bhagwati, Jiya Singh, Ballam Singh, Yasoda Bai and Bodhni. Said Gour Singh had moved an application on 18/9/1978 before the Collector, Rajnandgaon, seeking permission for the alienation of the alleged land under sub-sec. (6) of Sec. 165 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code, 1959") and, the Collector, Rajnandgaon, vide its order dtd. 18/9/1978 (Annexure P-2) had accorded its permission for the alienation of the land in question in favour of the petitioner-Kishore Singh S/o Shankar Singh, who purchased the same under the registered deed of sale, dtd. 22/5/1979. An application was, thereafter made by respondent No.5- Pal Singh, who is the son of said Gour Singh, on 28/6/2002 for reversion of the land in question, by alleging, inter alia, that the alleged deed of sale was obtained by petitioner- Kishore Singh by playing fraud upon his father (Gour Singh), as he was intended to alienate 2 acres of land only, however, he got the alleged deed of sale with regard to 3 acres of land. The Sub-Divisional Officer, after due consideration of the said application, vide its order dtd. 18/8/2003 (Annexure P-4) in Revenue Case No.1-A/23/2002-03 has rejected the same, holding inter alia, that the alleged transaction was made upon due permission from the Collector on 18/9/1978 and, therefore, it cannot be held to be a fraudulent transaction as alleged by the respondent No.5 (Pal Singh). The said order was reversed in appeal preferred by said respondent No.5-Pal Singh by the Additional Collector, Rajnandgaon, vide its order dtd. 24/5/2004 in Appeal Case No.7-A/23(B)/2003-04, and the matter was remanded with a direction to decide the same afresh. Upon remand, the Sub-Divisional Officer vide its order dtd. 30/6/2005 (Annexure P-6), passed in Revenue Case No.1-A/23/2002-03, has directed for reversion of the land in question to the respondent No.6-Gour Singh as the petitioner has failed to furnish the information in terms of Sec. 170-B of the Code, 1959. The said order was affirmed by the Additional Collector, Rajnandgaon, vide its order dtd. 27/2/2006 in Appeal Case No.18-A/23(B)/2004-05 and, the revision preferred there-against was dismissed by the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg vide its order impugned dtd. 13/8/2015 and, being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this Petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the findings of the Courts below directing for the reversion of the land in question merely on the ground of non-furnishing the particulars provided in terms of Sec. 170-B of the Code, 1959, is apparently contrary to law as the petitioner has purchased the land in question under the registered deed of sale, dtd. 22/05/1979 after due permission from the Collector, who had accorded its permission in this regard in exercise of its power enumerated under subsec. (6) of Sec. 165 of the Code, 1959. It is the further contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the alleged direction for reversion of the land in question has been made even without holding an inquiry as per the provision prescribed under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 170-B of the Code, 1959, therefore, the order impugned as passed in violation of the said provision, deserves to be quashed. In support, he placed his reliance upon the principles laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the matter of Nityanand Panigrahi Versus State of M.P. and Others, reported in (2009) 3 CGLJ 360.