GANESHIYA BAI Vs. GURUVINDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioners are questioning the legality and propriety of the order dtd. 23/10/2012 (Annexure P-1) passed in Revenue Case No. R.N./05/R/A-70/119/2011, whereby, the Board of Revenue, has dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioners while affirming the order dtd. 7/1/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur in Revenue Appeal Case No.279/A-70/2009-10 and accordingly, the application filed by respondent No.1- Guruvindar Singh under Sec. 116 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code, 1959'), has been allowed.

(2.) Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No.1-Guruvindar Singh on the basis of an agreement to sale, dtd. 6/7/2005 (Annexure P-3), purported to have been executed in his favour by one Santosh Kumar, who is one of the co-owners of the land in question bearing Khasra No.225/1 admeasuring 7.59 acres situated at village Chorha, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, moved an application on 22/1/2008 before the Court of Naib Tehsildar, Dhamdha for recording of his name in Kafiat column of Khasra Panchashala under Sec. 116 of the Code, 1959. The said application was allowed by the said authority vide its order dtd. 26/2/2008, which was reversed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Durg vide its order dtd. 28/6/2008, and in appeal preferred thereagainst by respondent No.1, it was reversed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur vide its order dtd. 7/1/2011 and was found to be affirmed further by the Board of Revenue vide its order impugned dtd. 23/10/2012 in revision preferred by the petitioners and being aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the entire proceedings as initiated under Sec. 116 of the Code, 1959, at the instance of the respondent No.1- Guruvindar Singh is not at all sustainable as the same has been initiated on the basis of an alleged agreement to sale, dtd. 6/7/2005, seeking new entries in revenue record which is, however, not permissible under the said provision. It is, therefore, contended that the revenue authorities, except the Sub-Divisional Officer (R.) Durg, have committed an illegality in directing for recording the name of said respondent in the revenue papers. The order impugned as passed by the Board of Revenue while rejecting his revision petition and that by allowing the said application filed by respondent No.1 under Sec. 116 of the Code, 1959 is, therefore, liable to be set-aside.