JUNGBAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, the appellants herein, who are legal representatives of writ petitioner- Sardar Trilochan Singh [who died after delivery of judgment in writ petition], have preferred this writ appeal calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 2.2.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2154/1987 dismissing his writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India finding no merits, dubbing the order so passed as contrary to law. [For sake of convenience, parties hereinafter will be referred as per their status shown in the original writ petition]

(2.) The dispute relates to land held by Smt.Vedvati, holder of land (respondent No.4 in the writ petition), widow of late Praveen Chand Bhanjdeo, the Maharaja of Bastar [she was not impleaded in this appeal as she died issue-less]. The competent authority in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11 of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as "the Act of 1960") on 05.07.1985 declared 60.87 acres of land held by respondent No.4 therein including the land claimed by original writ petitioner as surplus land to be vested in the State. The writ petitioner filed the writ petition stating inter-alia that he is owner of Khasra No.30, area 26.50 acres at Jagdalpur (Bastar), which was also subject-matter of vesting by order dated 5.7.1985 on the strength of lease having been granted by Smt. Vedvati, respondent No.4 therein in the year 1970-71 placing him in actual physical and cultivating possession over the land. He further claimed that his name was entered in the revenue records on and from the year 1970-71 conferring upon him the status of occupancy tenant, which was later on recognized by an order passed by the Tashildar, Jagdalpur dated 3.1.1986 declaring him as Bhoomiswami of the land. It was claimed that revision preferred by the writ petitioner under Section 11(5) of the Act of 1960 was dismissed by the Board of Revenue holding it to be barred by limitation and review petition was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue, therefore, the order dated 5.7.1985 and orders of the revisional and appellate authorities be quashed and the writ petition be allowed.

(3.) The Learned Single Judge after taking note of the fact that writ petition was filed on 22.7.87 and remained pending till the matter came up for hearing on 19.10.2016 decided to hear the parties on merits instead of remanding the matter to the Board of Revenue for deciding the appeal/revision on merits after condoning the delay in preferring appeal/revision which learned counsel for the parties graciously agreed and after hearing the parties on merits, dismissed the writ petition holding that alleged grant or approval of or accrual of Bhumiswami right to the writ petitioner being itself is void and inoperative in view of the provisions contained in Section 5 read with Section 6-B of the Act of 1960 and declined to grant any relief to the writ petitioner. Now, by way of this writ appeal, lis has been brought before us.