GHARBHARAN Vs. PRATIPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dtd. 5/11/2012 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Commissioner, Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) in Revision Case No. 95/A-23/10-11, whereby the order dtd. 28/4/2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Upper Collector, Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (CG) in appeal bearing (Revenue Case) No. 6/A-23/2010- 2011 filed by the petitioners, has been set aside and the order dtd. 31/1/2011 (Annexure P-4) for reversion of subject land to respondent No. 1 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manendragarh (CG) in Revenue Case No. 42A-23/99-2000 has been affirmed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, Rai Singh, who is father of respondent No. 1 Pratipal Singh, who belongs to member of aboriginal tribe, had taken a loan from Jila Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank, Manendragarh, Distt. Sarguja (in short, 'Cooperative Bank') in the year 1970 by mortgaging subject land. Since Rai Singh could not repay the loan amount, the Cooperative Bank sold the land by auction sale to one Santosh Kumar Jain on 1/6/1974, who again sold the land to one Julfikar Ali, thereafter on 4/2/1987, father of petitioners namely Tejnath purchased the land from Julfikar Ali. After about 25 years of auction sale i.e. in the year 1999, respondent No. 1, who is son of Rai Singh filed an application under Sec. 170-B of the CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short, 'The Code, 1959') before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manendragarh, Distt. Korea, which was allowed vide Annexure P-4 dtd. 31/1/2011 and subject land was ordered to be reversed to the respondent No. 1. Against the reversion order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), the petitioners filed an appeal before the Upper Collector, Manendragarh, Distt. Korea, which has been allowed by the Upper Collector, Manendragarh vide order dtd. 28/4/2011 (Annexure P- 1) and the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) was set aside. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja challenging the order (Annexure P-1) of the Upper Collector, Mahasamund and vide impugned order dtd. 5/11/2012 (Annexure P-2), the Commissioner allowed the revision preferred by the respondent No. 1 by setting aside the order passed by the Upper Collector. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dtd. 5/11/2012, the petitioners have preferred instant writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, subject land was purchased by one Santosh Kumar Jain on 1/6/1974 in a public auction held by the Cooperative Bank. Thereafter, it was transferred to Julfikar Ali and ultimately, the land was purchased by father of petitioners on 4/2/1987 by registered sale deed from Julfikar Ali. It is further submitted that, when subject land was sold in public auction in the year 1974, at that time, provisions of Sec. 165(6) of the Code, 1959, as it is now, were not present, as it was inserted vide amendment in the year 1976. While referring to sub-sec. 9 of Sec. 165 of the Code, 1959, learned counsel submits that the land of Bhoomiswami can be sold in respect of payment of loan taken by him from the cooperative society. Further, the place of residence of respondent No. 1 Manendragarh was notified as tribal area on 26/1/1977 i.e. after aforesaid auction sale, therefore, the provisions under Sec. 170-B of the Code, 1959 are not attracted in instant case. It is further submitted that, petitioners/their father are bonafide purchaser as they purchased subject land from subsequent purchaser of auction purchaser, but the auction purchaser and subsequent purchaser i.e. Santosh Kumar Jain and Julfikar Ali have not been made party. Further, father of respondent No. 1 Rai Singh has neither raised any objection during auction nor challenged auction sale during his lifetime nor he filed any application for reversion of land, rather, he received remaining amount of auction sale excess from loan amount to be paid by him, but after about 25 years of aforesaid auction sale, respondent No. 1 has filed application under Sec. 170-B of the Code, 1959, therefore, such a belated application is liable to be rejected at threshold, and instant petition may be allowed. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Shakuntala Vs. State of Karnataka [2023 SCC Online 534], Poonam Vs. State of UP and others [(2016) 2 SCC 779]. He also relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Bedram Vs. State of CG and ors passed in WP No. 2738/2002 dtd. 10/5/2019, and Itwari Vs. Ibrahim and ors. passed in WP227 No. 222/2014 dtd. 29/9/2021.