ARUN AGRAWAL Vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE REVENUE BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein mortgaged the subject land bearing Khasra No.153/6, area 0.142 hectare and Khasra No.157/11, area 0.70 hectare, total area 0.212 hectare, situate at Purani Basti Road, Manendragarh, Koriya, in favour of Indian Overseas Bank in lieu of the loan advanced to him and it is a secured asset within the meaning of Section 2(zc) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the SARFAESI Act'). He defaulted in payment of loan and thereafter, the secured asset was subjected to sale under the provisions of Section 13(12) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short, 'the Rules of 2002'). The respondent No.4 Bank sold the suit property in favour of respondent No.3 herein Kaushal Arora for consideration on payment of Rs.41 lakhs and the said Bank issued sale certificate in favour of respondent No.3 on 21-11-2011. The said respondent No.3 herein made an application for mutation under Section 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, 'the Code') of the subject land in his favour which was objected to by the petitioner herein, but ultimately, by order dated 12-3-2012, the learned Tahsildar made an order in favour of respondent No.3 for mutation of the subject land in his name which was appealed by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manendragarh and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) on 27-9-2012 referred the matter to the Collector in light of the provisions contained in Section 165(6-a) of the Code holding that the suit land has been transferred in violation of the said provision without the permission of the Collector for the reasons to be recorded in writing which the Additional Collector considered on 11-7-2013 and finding the transfer to be violative of the provision contained in Section 165 (6-a) of the Code declared the transaction void and directed that the possession of land be restored to the petitioner.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Additional Collector declaring the sale in favour to be void being violative of the provisions contained in Section 165 (6-a) of the Code, the petitioner herein preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue under Section 50 of the Code. By the impugned order, the learned Chairman of the Board of Revenue allowed the revision and held that by virtue of Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, the provisions of the SARFAESI Act would have overriding effect over the provisions contained in Section 165 (6-a) of the Code and in light of that, set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector declaring the transaction as void being violative of Section 165 (6-a) of the Code.

(3.) Now, the petitioner takes exception to the order of the Board of Revenue setting aside the order of the Additional Collector contending inter alia that by virtue of Section 165 (6-a) of the Code, the land being in Scheduled Area, the owner of the land cannot sell the land with complying with the provisions contained in Section 165 (6-a) of the Code and the learned Board of Revenue went wrong in holding that by virtue of Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, the provisions of the SARFAESI Act would prevail over Section 165 (6-A) of the Code.