1 2025:CGHC:33789 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1237 of 2020 Vishwanath S/o Ramdas Aged About 60 Years Caste Rajwar, Residence of Village Luchki (Kantiprakashpur), Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja,(CG) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Dashru S/o Late Lusu 2 - Ram Prasad S/o Late Lusu (Died) Through Lrs., 2- a. Fuleshwari Wd/o Late Ram Prasad 2- b. Pooja D/o Late Ram Prasad 2-c. Ramesh S/o Late Ram Prasad 3 - Genda (Died) Through Lrs In Compliance of Hon’ble Court Order Dated 12/08/2022 3.A - Shyampati D/o Late Genda Aged About 25 Years 3.B - Shyamkunwar S/o Late Genda aged about 23 years 3.C - Roshan S/o Late Genda Aged About 19 Years 3.D - Budhram S/o Late Genda, Aged About 15 Years (Minor), Through Natural Guardian Elder Brother Roshan, All are R/o Village Shrigarh, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) 4 - Bakdam S/o Late Lusu R/o village Kadpani, Village Panchayat Chendra, Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja (CG) 5 - Retulu S/o Late Lusu Korwa (Died) Through Legal Heirs, SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.07.18 10:40:45 +0530 2 5. a. Shanti D/o Retulu R/o Village Ramnagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja(CG) 5. -b. Bandhan S/o Retulu R/o Village Badhiyachunwa, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) 6 - Bandhani Korwa S/o Late Lusu Korwa R/o Village Badhiyachunwa, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja(CG), 7 - Kokdi Korwa S/o Late Lusu R/o Village Mirgadand, Village Panchayat Luchki, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) 8 - Munni Korwa S/o Late Lusu Korwa R/o Village Dhirikona Village Panchayat Luchki, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) 9 - Khori Korwa S/o Late Lusu Korwa R/o Village Jujha, Village Panchayat Khala, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG), 10 - Kunt S/o Late Bhaira Korwa R/o Village Dhirikona Village Panchayat Luchki, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) 11 - Nan S/o Late Lusu Korwa R/o Village Luchki (Kantiprakashpur), Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) 12 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collecto,r Surguja (CG) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate appears along with Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate For Respondents No.1, 2-b, 2-c, 4, 5-a, 5-b and 6 to 11 : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate For Respondents No.12 : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, P.L. Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board 17.07.2025 1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner- Vishwanath is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 23.03.2020 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division (Ambikapur) (CG) in Revenue Revision Case No.259/A-23/2017-18, whereby, while 3 affirming the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the Collector, Surguja, in Revenue Appeal Case No.5/A-23/2014-15, has reversed the order dated 08.10.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambikapur in Revenue Case No.24-A/23/2013-14 and consequently, the application filed by the legal representatives of one Lusu under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code, 1959’), was allowed, while directing for the reversion of the land in question to them. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the land bearing Khasra No.520 admeasuring 2.14 acres, situated at village Luchki, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja was recorded in the name of one Jharanda Korwa S/o Bojha Korwa, as revealed from the ‘Surguja State Survey Settlement’ and thereafter, it was recorded in the name of his wife, namely, Sanjho, along with one Lusu S/o Feku Korwa, as revealed from the revenue paper like, B-1 for the year 1954-55. It appears further that on the basis of the ‘Namantaran Panji’, dated 16.01.1962, the land in question was recorded in the name of one Luran on the basis of the ‘deed of relinquishment’, executed by said Sanjho in his favour. After acquiring the land in question, as such, the said Luran, alienated the same to one Sawram Kanwar under the registered deed of sale, dated 27.02.1968 and, thereafter said Sawram Kanwar, moved an application under Section 165-B of the Code, 1959 on 16.05.1968 before the Collector, Ambikapur seeking permission to alienate the same and vide order dated 17.03.1969, the permission was accorded to him for alienation of the land in question and, accordingly, he sold the same to one Yashoda Devi wife of Girija Shankar Mishra, by executing a registered deed of sale, dated 29.04.1969 and, from 4 whom, father of the petitioner, namely, Ramdas has purchased the same in the name of his minor son, namely, Vishwanath, the petitioner herein, under the registered deed of sale dated 29.01.1974. 3. It reveals further from perusal of the record that sometimes in the year 1991, an application enumerated under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 was made by one Lusu and Nan, before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambikapur for the reversion of the land in question as they were defrauded from the alleged land. It appears further that after considering the said application, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambikapur, vide its order dated 21.09.1994 (Annexure P-6) in Revenue Case No.59/A-23/1991-92, has allowed the same and directed for reversion of the land in question in their favour and, the order as passed by the said authority was affirmed further by the Collector, Surjuga and Commissioner, Bilaspur vide order dated 13.11.1995 and 03.01.1998, respectively. 4. It appears further that being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, a writ petition, being W.P. No.3816 of 1998, was filed and after considering the same, it was observed by this Court vide order dated 15.07.2013 (Annexure P-7) that the enquiry as required under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 was not made properly and, in consequence, the matter was remanded and, upon remand, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambikapur vide its order dated 08.10.2014 (Annexure P-3), has rejected the said application, holding inter alia, that the petitioner- Vishwanath has obtained the land in question by virtue of a registered deed of sale, dated 29.01.1974. 5. 5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order as passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Ambikapur in Revenue Case No.24-A/23/2013-14, an 5 appeal was preferred by the legal representatives of said Lusu, before the Collector, Surguja, who in turn, vide its order dated 22.03.2018 (Annexure P-9), has reversed the same in Revenue Appeal Case No.5/A-23/2014-15 and the order as passed by the said authority was affirmed further by the Commissioner, Surguja Division (Ambikapur) vide order impugned dated 23.03.2020 (Annexure P-1) in revision preferred by the petitioner- Vishwanath and, accordingly, the land in question was directed to be reverted to the legal representatives of said Lusu. 6. What is, therefore, reflected from the facts mentioned herein-above, that the land in question bearing Khasra No.520 admeasuring 2.14 acres was initially recorded in the name of one Jharanda Korwa S/o Bojha Korwa, as revealed from the ‘Surjuga State Survey Settlement’ and was found to be recorded, thereafter in the name of his wife- Sanjho, along with one Lusu, as revealed from the Revenue Paper, like B-1 for the year 1954-55 and there is no dispute in this regard that the land in question was not held by said Sanjho and Lusu, the predecessor-in-interest of the said aboriginals, who had moved an application sometimes in the year 1991 under Section 170-B of the code 1959 for the reversion of the land in question. 7. 7. Although, the ‘Namantaran Panji’, dated 16.01.1962 was shown to be recorded in the name of one Luran, based upon the ‘deed of relinquishment’, executed by said Sanjho in his favour, but no document, as such, like the registered one, was, however, placed on record, so as to hold that said Luran had acquired any interest, whatsoever, over the land in question, i.e. the land bearing Khara No.520 admeasuring 2.14 acres and, therefore, the land in question as 6 was purchased by Sawram Kanwar from him under the registered deed of sale dated 27.02.1968, would not confer any right, title or interest upon him and, therefore, although, the permission was accorded by the Collector, Surguja vide its order dated 17.03.1969, permitting him to alienate the same to Yashoda, but Luran, who had not acquired any interest over the land in question was, therefore, not entitled to alienate the same, as such, to said Sawram Kanwar and, therefore, said Yashoda Devi W/o Girija Shankar Mishra cannot be held to acquire any interest over the land in question from him (Sawram Kanwar). In such an eventuality, the land in question as was purchased by the petitioner’s father from her under the registered deed of sale, dated 29.01.1974 in the name of his minor son-Vishwanath, would not confer any right, title or interest upon him. 8. In view of the aforesaid background, I do not any infirmity in the order impugned, dated 23.03.2020 passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division (Ambikapur) in Revenue Revision Case No.259/A-23/2017-18, while affirming the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the Collector, Surguja reverting the land in question to the legal representatives of said Lusu, so as to call for any interference in this petition. 9. The petition, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE sunita 7