AJAY AGRAWAL Vs. MEHATARIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division Jagdalpur (C.G.) dtd. 19/12/2018 in Revision Case No.27/A-23/14-15 whereby the revision preferred by respondent No.1 was allowed and the orders passed by the Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) were set aside.

(2.) The facts of the present case are that the land admeasuring 2.82 acres situated at Village-Bhirlinga, Tehsil Bastar, District Jagdalpur was recorded in the name of Hanumat. He moved an application seeking permission to sell his property according to the provisions of Sec. 165(6) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code of 1959') and the same was allowed vide order dtd. 14/7/1972 and thereafter, he sold the property through a registered sale deed to one Radhabai. Radhabai sold the property to the petitioners herein. The petitioners were found in possession of the suit property, therefore, on the application moved by Hanumat, a proceeding under Sec. 170-B of the Code of 1959 was initiated by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bastar. The authority concerned rejected the application moved by Hanumat on the ground that earlier, a similar application was moved in the year 1992 and the same was rejected and there was permission according to the provisions of Sec. 165(6) of the Code of 1959 in favour of Radhabai. Thereafter, Hanumat preferred an appeal before the Collector against the order passed by the SubDivisional Officer and the same was rejected on 6/4/2015. He preferred a revision before the Commissioner Bastar, Division Jagdalpur and the same was allowed vide order dtd. 19/12/2018. The petitioners have challenged the said order by filing the present petition.

(3.) Mr. Jha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Commissioner, Division Bastar committed an error of law in deciding the revision finally by conducting an inquiry according to the provisions of Sec. 170-B of the Code of 1959 which was not permissible according to the provisions of the Code of 1959. He would further submit that the learned Commissioner ought to have remitted back the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bastar, who is the competent authority/tribunal to inquire into the matter with regard to Sec. 170-B of the Code of 1959. He would contend that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) while exercising the power under Sec. 170-B of the Act of 1959 has been vested with the power to inquire into the permission granted under Sec. 165(6) of the Code of 1959. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Commissioner in this regard are also erroneous. He would pray that the order passed by the Commissioner may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) to inquire into the matter and pass an appropriate order afresh.