LAWS(CHH)-2009-8-36

NITYANAND PANIGRAHI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On August 17, 2009
NITYANAND PANIGRAHI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition is directed against the order dated 23-7-1992, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jagdalpur (for short 'SDO'), in Case No. 475/A-23/91-92, order dated 31-5-1993, passed by Additional Collector, Jagdalpur, in Revenue Case No. 7/A-23/92-93, and order dated 23-6-1997, passed by the Commissioner, Bastar, in Revenue Case No. 85/A-23/92-93, whereby and whereunder, the SDO directed for restoration of possession of the disputed land in favour of predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. THE same was affirmed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, by dismissing the appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case as per petitioner are that, the petitioner's father Sanujjay Panigrahi, under a registered sale-deed dated 19-5-1965 (Annexure P-2), purchased the agricultural land comprising Khasra No. 216 Admeasuring 1 Acre, situated in Village Titargaon, Tah. Jagdalpur, from one Butia son of Kartik Ram Bhatara (predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 5 and 6), after obtaining permission from Collector, Jagdalpur, in Revenue Case No. 19/A-21/64-65 vide order dated 26-2-1965, for consideration of Rs. 100/-under Section 165(6) of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code').

(3.) SHRI Vishnu Kosta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner ' would submit that the petitioner's father was bonafide purchaser of the suit land, who purchased the suit land from Butia son of Kartik Ram Bhatara vide registered sale-deed dated 19-5-65 after obtaining due permission under Section 165(6) of the Code, and therefore, the order passed by all the Courts below merely on the ground that the petitioner did not notify all the information to the SDO as to how he has come in possession of such land within the period prescribed therefor, is contrary to provisions of Section 170B of the Code, and also runs counter to the judgments of Division Bench's in cases of Dhirendra Nath Sharma v. State of M.P. and Anr. 1985 MPLJ 786 and Atmaram and Anr. v. State of M.R. 1995 MPLJ 633.