1 2025:CGHC:16233 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 227 of 2013  Tilakram S/o Sukhru Aged About 55 Years R/o Vill Tunda, Ps Urga Tah Kartala, Distt Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Additional Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Additional Collector Korba, Distt Korba, Chhattisgarh 3. Sub Divisional Officer R Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4. Brijlal S/o Gangaram R/o Saraipali, Ps Urga, Tah Kartala, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5. Brij Bai D/o Gangaram R/o Saraipali, Ps Urga, Tah Kartala, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6. Noni Bai D/o Gangaram R/o Saraipali, Ps Urga, Tah Kartala, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 7. Kartik Kanwar S/o Gangaram R/o Saraipali, Ps Urga, Tah Kartala, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 8. Ku. Rajni Bai D/o Gangarm R/o Saraipali, Ps Urga, Tah Kartala, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 9. Phoolwari (Phool Bai) Wd/o Gangaram R/o Saraipali, Ps Urga, Tah Kartala, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 10.Umashankar Patel S/o Thandaram Patel R/o Vill Tunda, Ps Urga, Tah Kartala, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.04.09 14:16:56 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate For State/Respondents No. 1 : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer to 3 For Respondents No. 4 to 9 : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate For Respondent No. 10 : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07. 04.2025 1. The petitioner/aboriginal tribe has filed this petition challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Division Bilaspur, in Revision Case No. 04/A-23/2012-13 dated 31.01.2013, whereby the order passed by the Collector in Appeal No. 4/A-23/2010-11 has been affirmed. 2. The facts of the present case are that respondents No. 4 to 9 are members of the aboriginal tribe. The father of respondents No. 4 to 8 namely Gangaram moved an application under Section 170B of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “Code, 1959”) on the ground that survey No. 77/4, 75/5, 84 admeasuring 0.03 acre, 0.22 acre and 0.83 respectively, situated at Village Limgaon, Patwari Circle No. 14, Tahsil Kartla, District Korba was recorded in his name in the revenue records. He further stated that respondent No. 10/Umashankar Patel purchased the property and a sale-deed was executed in the name of the petitioner/Tilakram, who is also a member of the aboriginal tribe, but it was a Benami Transaction. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer examined the transaction and allowed the application moved by Gangaram under Section 170B of the Code, 1959 vide order dated 08.07.2011. Tilakram/petitioner challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Collector, Korba and it was dismissed vide order dated 01.12.2011. A revision was preferred before the Commissioner, Division Bilaspur and the same was dismissed vide order dated 3 31.01.2013. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba. He would further submit that an application was moved by Late Gangaram under Section 170 B of the Code, 1959 on 24.01.2011 and notices were issued to Umashankar Patel and Tilakram. He would also submit that on 19.04.2011, a notice was again issued to Non-Applicant No. 2/Tilakram. He would contend that on 16.05.2011, the learned Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba recorded evidence of the applicants/aboriginal tribes/respondents No. 4 to 9 and again a notice was issued to the petitioner. He would further contend that the petitioner appeared before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba on 09.06.2011 and he was afforded an opportunity to argue the matter and file written arguments, and thereafter, the order was passed on 08.07.2011. He would also contend that the petitioner was not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the applicant’s witness, therefore, he would pray that the orders passed by the learned Courts below may be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. They would further contend that on 16.06.2011, the petitioner appeared along with his counsel and sought time to file a reply. They would also submit that the petitioner never moved any application before the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba to cross-examine the applicant’s witness, therefore, at this stage, such a ground is not available to the petitioner. They would contend that there is a concurrent finding recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Collector and Commissioner, therefore, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4 6. Mr. Roop Ram Naik, counsel appearing for respondent No. 10 would submit that respondent No. 10 has purchased the subject property through a registered sale-deed dated 24.04.1978 from the petitioner and the amount of consideration was already paid and he is in possession of the property. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 8. A perusal of the order-sheets of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba would show that the case was registered on 24.01.2011. Notices were issued on 11.04.2011 & 19.04.2011. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba recorded the statement/evidence of respondents No. 4 to 9/aboriginal tribes on 16.05.2011 and on that date, again a notice was issued to the petitioner. On 09.06.2011, the petitioner appeared along with his counsel and sought time to file a reply. He filed a reply on 22.06.2011 and the case was fixed for final arguments, and thereafter, the final order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in favour of respondents No. 4 to 9. 9. The Collector as well as Commissioner have not considered the fact that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witness or to lead evidence. 10. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was not permitted to lead evidence or cross-examine the witness of respondents No. 4 to 9; the orders passed by the learned Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently, all the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Korba, Collector, Korba and Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division are hereby set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba to afford the proper opportunity of 5 hearing to the petitioner and to take a decision afresh. 11. It is a matter of 2011; therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba is directed to conclude the proceedings, preferably within a period of 90 days from 24th April, 2025. The parties are directed to appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba on the 24th April, 2025. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant