1 / 5 2025:CGHC:7669 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No.625 of 2017 1 - Nar Singh Thakur S/o Rati Ram Thakur Aged About 65 Years R/o C/o Shri Gajendra Singh Thakur Dhamtari Raod Near Pachpedi Naka Navjeevan Society Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2- Collector, Collectorate, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Department Of Revenue, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh .. Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Sourabh Sahu, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy.GA Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board 12.02.2025 1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs :- 10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records from the respondents concerned pertaining to the petitioner’s case for its kind perusal. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 24.12.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue in Case No.M/Misc./05/R/B-121/16/2016 arising out of the order dated 03/02/2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by Collector Durg vide memorandum No.2017/P. Col/2016. 10.3 Cost of the proceedings. SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE 2 / 5 10.4 Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon’ble Court. 2. According to the petitioner, who belongs to ab-original, has purchased the land in question bearing Khasra No.709/63 admeasuring 4056 Square Feet, situated at Ward No.42, Kasaridih, Durg, from one Naresh Chandra Jain under the registered deed of sale, dated 06.07.1993 (Annexure P-3) and, thereafter moved an application under Section 59 and Section 172 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code, 1959”) before the competent authority, i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Durg for its change of purpose, for which, the land is used and for its diversion. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the said proceeding was registered as Case No.1272/A-2/Year 1996-97 and vide order dated 31.07.1997 (Annexure P-4), the same was allowed and the use of the alleged land was changed from agricultural purpose to some other purpose. 3. It is contended further by the petitioner during the course of arguments, while referring to the second proviso to sub-section(1) of Section 172 of the Code, 1959, though not pleaded in the petition, that since the land revenue of the alleged land has been assessed under Section 59 of the Code, 1959, therefore, neither the permission is required for such diversion, nor permission is required for its alienation under sub-section (6) of Section 165 of the Code, 1959. The order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that since the land in question was not diverted under Section 172 of the Code, 1959, by virtue of the said order passed on 31.07.1997 (Annexure P-4) by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Durg, therefore, 3 / 5 before alienation of the land in question, the permission is required under sub-section(6) of Section 165 of the Code, 1959. The order impugned as passed by the Board of Revenue is, therefore, do not call for any interference and, the petition, as framed, is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 6. From perusal fo the record, it appears that after due consideration of the application filed by the petitioner, an order (Annexure P-4) was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Durg on 31.07.1997 in Case No.1272/A-2/1996- 97, whereby no permission for diversion of the alleged land owned by the petitioner was accorded and, in fact, the assessment of the land revenue of the said land was assessed with regard to its use only and, observed specifically therein that it was not made under Section 172 of the Code, 1959, while observing further that the purchaser and vendor of the alleged land would be responsible in case of the violation of the said provision. The said order in its verbatim reads as under:- 31-7-97 ्ቚकरण आज ्ቚस्तुत । अ० भू० अ० परिर० भू्मि दु्ቇ एवं रा० मि० परिर० भूमि का ्ቚतितवेद का अवलोक मिकया। सहायक संचालक ्ቇर ्ቇा मिवेश दु्ቇ से राय अ्ቚा्቎। ऐसी दशा ें व्पपवत की अु्ሺा हीं दी जाती । चुमिक ्ቚ्቞ाधी भूमि पटवारी पांचसाला खसरा एवं रजिज्ቖ्री बैाा के अुसार टुकडें ें व्ቇफु ट पर ्ቅय मिकया ्ቇया है। अतः ० ्ቚ० भू० राजस्व संमिहता 1959 की धारा 59(2) के तहत ्ቇा क सारीडीह के खसरा ं० 709/63 रकबा 4056 व्ቇफु ट का पुः मिधारण 959=25 रू० मिदांक 1-10-96 से मिधारिरत मिकया जाता है। धारा 59(5) के तहत 47=50 रू० ्ቚीमिय आरोमिपत मिकया जाता है। कृ मि= जा 0-07 रू० मिदांक 1-10-96 से क मिकया जाता है। यह धारा 172 (1) के तहत हीं है। इसे व्यपवत की अु्ሺा हीं ाा जावें। ० ्ቚ० ्ቇर ्ቇा मिवेश अतिधमिय 1973, ० ्ቚ० ्ቇर भूमि सीा अतिधमिय 1976, ० ्ቚ० मिमिवቖኌद्ቖ ्ቝ्ቖ आचरण अतिधमिय 1982, तथा भू० राजस्व संमिहता 1959 की धारा 59 एवं 172 के ्ቚावधाों मियों तथा 4 / 5 अतिधमियों के उ्ቤंघ होे पर ्ቚ्቞ाधी भूमि के ्ቅे ता एवं मिव्ቅे ता ही जवाबदेह हो्ቇें। यह न्यायालय जवाबदेह हीं है। उपरो्ሹाुसार आदेश पारिरत । ्ቚकरण इस न्यायालय के पंजी ें पंजीब्ቍ की जाकर ूलतः अ० भू० अ० परिर० भूमि दु्ቇ को अमि्ቇ कायवाही हेतु वापस। सही/अस्प्ቖ अुमिवभा्ቇीय अतिधकारी, दु्ቇ. 7. A bare perusal of the aforesaid order would, thus, show that it has been passed in exercise of the power provided under sub-section (2) of Section 59 of the Code, 1959, while re-assessing the land revenue of the alleged land. No order as such under Section 172 of the Code, 1959 has been passed for its diversion, as it has been mentioned very specifically therein that it has not been made under the said provision. The land in question has, thus, not been diverted as alleged herein by the petitioner. 8. In so far as the further contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner based upon the second proviso to sub-section(1) of Section 172 of the Code,1959 is concerned, the same is, however, noted to be rejected, as the second proviso to sub-section(1) of Section 172 of the Code, 1959 has been inserted by Act No.32 of 2013 and has come into force with effect from 17.08.2013, while the alleged land owned by the petitioner was assessed under Section 59 of the Code, 1959, on 31.07.1997 in Case No.1272/A- 2/1996-1997, i.e. much prior to its insertion. Even otherwise, no plea in this regard has been made by the petitioner so as to take note of the said contention of the counsel for the petitioner. 9. What is, therefore, reflected from the aforesaid observation that since the land in question was not found to be diverted as per the provision prescribed under Section 172 of the Code, 1959, the petitioner would, 5 / 5 therefore, not be entitled to alienate its land without the permission of the competent authority as provided under sub-section(6) of Section 165 of the Code, 1959. No interference is, therefore, called for in the order impugned as passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur. 10. The petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Tumane