RUKHMANI THAKUR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is against the judgment & decree dated 12.05.2006 passed by the Court of First Additional District Judge Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.53-A/2005 whereby a suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for declaration that the order dated 31.12.1999 passed in Revenue Case No.15-A-39/1998-99 in between "State v. Avinash Chandra Bhargav & Others" is not binding on the present appellant.

(2.) Case of the appellant/plaintiff was that she has purchased a land bearing Khasra Nos. 888/42 admeasuring 0.80 acre, 888/57 admeasuring 0.80 acre, 888/53 admeasuring 0.80 acre, 888/45 admeasuring 0.80 acre & 888/60 admeasuring 0.80 acre from Avinash Chandra Bhargav by a sale deed dated 11.01.1999 and another land bearing Khasra No.888/46 admeasuring 0.50 acre from one Lakhanpuri by a sale deed dated 28.01.1999. It was stated that after purchase, the said land were mutated in name of the appellant/plaintiff by an order dated 18.06.1999. It was case of the plaintiff that the Additional Collector on a report made by the Tahsildar took up the matter sue moto under Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code and opened a revenue case wherein it was held that the subject lands were leasehold lands and without permission the initial sale were executed by the erstwhile lessee and consequently had set aside the sale along-with the lease granted to the different persons. Consequently, as a fallout of it, the sale deed executed in favour of Avinash Chandra Bhargav was set aside, which in turn affected the sale executed in favour of the present appellant Smt. Rukhmani Thakur by Avinash Chandra Bhargav.

(3.) The State in its written statement stated that the subject lands in question are the government leasehold land and the lease were given to different persons and no authority exists in favour of the defendant namely Avinash Chandra Bhargav to purchase the land from the lessee without permission of the State. It was contended that therefore the permission having not been obtained, the subsequent sale deed by the lessee and the purchaser do not get any right over the property so supported the order of the Additional Collector.