1 / 8 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2540 of 2021 Reserved on 14/01/2025 Pronounced on 20/01/2025 M/s Ajneya Constructions Through Its Partner Shri Shiva Naidu, S/o V. Ashok Naidu, Aged about- R/o - 305, Chandra Park Apartment, Brihaspati Bazar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector- Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - M/s Rishabh Associates Through its Partners (amended as per the Court order dated 11.11.2024) 2(a)- Ram Khedia S/o late Purshottam Das Khedia, aged about 60 years, R/o 27 Kholi, Vikas Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) 2(b) Smt. Nutan Khedia W/o Ram Khedia, aged about 55 years, R/o 27 Kholi, Vikas Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) 2(c) Ankit Wadhwani S/o late Shri Devidas Wadhwani, aged about 32 years,R/o Jagmal Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) 2(d) Smt. Kiran Wadhwani W/o late Devidas Wadhwani, aged about 52 years, R/o Jagmal Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) 3 - Smt. Parvati Bai W/o Late Surit Ram Banjare Aged About 59 Years 4 - Smt. Laxmi Bai D/o Late Surit Ram Banjare Aged About 41 Years 5 - Smt. Sati Bai D/o Late Surit Ram Banjare Aged About 39 Years SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.01.21 11:05:15 +0530 2 / 8 6 - Smt. Jati Bai D/o Late Surit Ram Banjare Aged About 37 Years 7 - Smt. Nisha D/o Late Surit Ram Banjare Aged About 34 Years 8 - Smt. Kiran D/o Late Surit Ram Banjare Aged About 33 Years Respondents No. 3 to 8 are R/o- Magarpara, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (CG) 9 - Ramesh Banjare S/o Makhan Banjare Aged About 54 Years R/o- Magarpara, Bilaspur(CG) 10 - Naresh Banjare S/o Makhan Banjare Aged About 46 Years R/o- Magarpara, Bilaspur(CG) ..Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Y.C. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate appears along with Shri Aseem Bhagwat Gopal and Shri Sandeep Singh, Advocates For State/Respondent No. 1 : Shri Ratan Pusty, Government Advocate For Respondents No. 2(a) to 2(d) : Shri Manoj Paranjape and Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocates For Respondents No.3 to 9 : Shri K. Rohan, Advocate For Respondent No.10 : None, though served. Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal C A V Order 1. Grievance of the petitioner- M/s Ajneya Constructions is to the order dated 22.05.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Case No.M/02/R/A-6/64/2020, whereby, a direction has been issued for recording the name of respondent No.2-M/s Rishabh Associates, based upon the application made by the said respondent under Section 29 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code, 1959). 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order impugned has been passed on the basis of the application 3 / 8 (Annexure P-2), moved by respondent No.2- M/s Rishabh Associates, without impleading the petitioner- M/s Ajneya Constructions, though, the land bearing Khasra No. 833/5 and 833/6 admeasuring 7750 sq.ft. each was purchased under the registered deed of sales, both dated 22.02.2019, purported to have been executed by Ramesh and Naresh, who are sons of Makhan S/o Samaru, yet a direction has been issued for recording the name of respondent No.2- M/s Rishabh Associates and that too on the basis of the application (Annexure P-2), whereby, it was just prayed for the transfer of the proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur to some other Court. Therefore, the entire proceedings and consequent upon the issuance of a direction for recording the name of respondent No.2- M/s Rishabh Associates, is apparently contrary to law and deserves to be quashed. 3. From perusal of the record, it appears that an application (Annexure P- 2) was moved by respondent No.2- M/s Rishabh Associates before the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur under Section 29 of the Code, 1959, seeking transfer of case, being Revenue Appeal Case No.29/A-6/2018-19, pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur to any other Court, and praying further for the compliance of the order dated 19.08.2016 passed by the Board of Revenue in Case No.RN/02/R/A-6/724/2015 as per the provisions prescribed under Section 8 of the Code, 1959. It is alleged in the aforesaid application (Annexure P-2), filed on 05.10.2020, that by virtue of the registered deed of sale dated 04.10.2016, respondent No.2- M/s Rishabh Associates, has purchased the land in question bearing Khasra No. 833/1 and 833/3, total admeasuring 0.75 acres, situated at village- Juna Bilaspur, 4 / 8 Tahsil and District Bilaspur from respondents No. 3 to 8, namely, Smt. Parvati Bai, Smt. Laxmi Bai, Smt. Sati Bai, Smt. Jati Bai, Smt. Nisha and Smt. Kiran (hereinafter referred to as ‘Smt. Parvati Bai and others’) and, thereafter, applied for the mutation before the concerned Halka Patwari, who placed the same before the Tahsildar, Bilaspur. The said proceeding was registered as Revenue Case No.83/A-6/2016-17 and was transferred subsequently, to the Additional Tahsildar, Bilaspur, where it was re-registered as Revenue Case No.05/A-6/2018-19, and vide order dated 04.10.2018 (Annexure P-4), it was rejected. 4. It appears that being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, an appeal, being Revenue Appeal Case No.29/A-6/2018-19 was preferred by respondent No.2- M/s Rishabh Associates before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur and the same is pending before the said authority, therefore, a request has been made for its transfer by way of moving the said application (Annexure P-2), made on 05.10.2020. 5. It is to be noted at this juncture, that a proceeding was earlier initiated by respondents No.3 to 8 (Smt.Parvati Bai and others) before the Tahsildar, Bilaspur, in the year 2012 for correction of the revenue papers. The said proceeding was rejected, but in an appeal preferred by them, i.e. Smt. Parvati Bai and others, it was reversed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur vide its order dated 10.09.2014 and in compliance of the said order, the revenue papers were mutated in their names (Smt. Parvati Bai and others) with regard to the land bearing Khasra No.833/1 and 833/3. It is to be seen further that being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, an appeal was 5 / 8 preferred by one Anil Tiwari and others before the Commissioner, Bilaspur, as their predecessor-in-interest, namely, Mahadev Tiwari had purchased the same of the land comprising of the alleged land from its erstwhile owner, namely, Samaru. The said appellate authority, i.e., the Commissioner, Bilaspur has reversed the same vide its order dated 27.10.2015 passed in Appeal Case No.01/A-6/2013-14. The said order, as was passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur, was questioned by respondents No.3 to 8 (Smt. Parvati Bai and others) before the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in revision, who in turn, vide its order dated 19.08.2016 in Revision Case No.RN/02/R/A- 6/724/2015, has allowed the same, while affirming the order as was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur on 10.09.2014 and directed for rectification of the land records in their names. 6. It is to be seen further that after passing of the aforesaid order, respondent No.2- M/s Rishabh Associates has purchased the land in question bearing Khasra No. 833/1 and 833/3, total admeasuring 0.75 acres under the registered deed of sale dated 04.10.2016 and applied for mutation, where, an objection was raised by one Ramesh and Naresh, both sons of Makhan son of Samaru, the erstwhile owner of the land in question, as their interests are also involved in the alleged land and that by upholding their objection, the Additional Tahsildar, Bilaspur vide its order dated 04.10.2018 (Annexure P-4), has rejected the said application of mutation and directed for recording their names along with respondents No. 3 to 8 (Smt. Parvati Bai and others) as joint holders. 7. 7. On contrary to the order dated 19.08.2016 passed by the Board of 6 / 8 Revenue, Bilaspur in the said Revision Case No.RN/02/R/A-6/724/2015, said Ramesh and Naresh, after recording their names as joint holders, moved an application for partition under Section 178 of the Code, 1959 before the Tahsildar, Bilaspur, who in turn, vide its order dated 20.02.2019 in Revenue Case No. 33/A-27/2018-19 has passed the order of partition, and revenue papers were recorded in their names with regard to the land bearing Khasra No.833/5 and 833/6, which are re-numbered upon the said partition and was sold to the petitioner– M/s Ajneya Constructions by executing two registered deed of sales, both dated 22.02.2019, by said Ramesh and Naresh, It, thus, appears that the petitioner- M/s Ajneya Constructions has acquired its interest with regard to the land bearing Khasra No.833/5 and 833/6, which are forming the part of the land in question bearing Khasra No.833/1 and 833/3, purchased by respondent No.2- M/s. Rishabh Associates, under the registered deed of sale, dated 04.10.2016, but, the said respondent without impleading the petitioner as a party respondent, has moved the alleged application (Annexure P-2) on 05.02.2020 seeking transfer of the appeal being Revenue Case No. 29/A/2018-2019, which was pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaspur, along with the further prayer for the compliance of the order dated 19.08.2016 as passed by the Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur in Revision Case No. RN/02/R/A-6/724/2015. 8. It, thus, appears that when the aforesaid fact regarding purchasing the land in question under the registered deed of sale dated 04.10.2016 and the said order of Board of Revenue, passed on 19.08.2016, was brought to the knowledge of the Tehsildar, Bilaspur, then the said authority has moved an application before the Sub-divisional officer (Revenue) Bilaspur, seeking 7 / 8 review of its order dated 04.10.2018 as was passed in Revenue Case No. 05/A-06/2018-19, as well as, the order dated 20.02.2019 passed in Revenue Case No.33/A/27/2018-19, by the said authority as the same is also pending before the said authority, i.e., Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaspur, since 11.03.2019. It, thus, appears that by virtue of the said application (Annexure P/2), moved on 05.10.2020, respondent No.2-M/s Rishabh Associates has prayed for the transfer of the said proceedings pending before the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaspur, to some other Court. 9. In view of the aforesaid fact it, thus, appears that the only issue required to be decided by the Board of Revenue Bilaspur, was, as to whether, the alleged proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaspur was required to be transferred as prayed for by Respondent No.2- M/s Rishabh Associates in its application (Annexure P/2), made on 05.10.2020, or not? But, while exceeding its jurisdiction, the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur vide its order impugned has considered so many things which were not required to be dealt with at that particular juncture, yet was considered and directed the Tehsildar, Bilaspur to correct the revenue papers in the name of said respondent No.2-M/s Rishabh Associates even in absence of the petitioner- M/s Ajneya Constructions, who had acquired its interest pertaining to the land bearing Khasara No.833/5 and 833/6 admeasuring 7750 sq.ft. comprising part of the land in question. 10. In view of the aforesaid background, the order impugned dated 22.05.2021(Annexure P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Case No. M/02/R/A-6/64/2020 is hereby set aside and, the matter is 8 / 8 accordingly, remitted to the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, with a direction to decide the said application as prayed for by respondent No.2- M/s Rishabh Associates in its application (Annexure P./2) dated 05.10.2020 and, the petitioner- Ms. Ajneya Constructions may apply for its impleadment in the said proceedings as a party respondent. Since the matter is an old one, therefore, it is expected from the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur to decide the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of 04 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed off and Registry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Board of Revenue, Bilaspur forthwith. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE sunita