-1- 2025:CGHC:18574 NAFR HIGH Court OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 662 of 2016 Sunita Agrawal W/o Shri Rajkumar Agrawal, Aged About 53 Years R/o Hanuman Rice Mill, Near Old Power House, Torwa Bilaspur, Police Station Torwa, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus Ram Ji S/o Late Sada Singh Gond, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Darrighat Bilaspur, Police Station And Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. B. P. Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Pushpa Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Lekhram Dhruv, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.04.2025 1) The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 02.09.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in Revision Case No.9-A/23-2015-16, whereby the revision preferred by Respondent No.1 was allowed and orders passed by the Additional Collector dated 26.08.2015 and the Tehsildar dated 18.06.2013 were set aside. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 2) Brief facts of the present case are as under:- A. The petitioner purchased land bearing Survey Nos. 161/3 and 161/4, admeasuring 0.65 acres, situated in village Darrighat, Masturi, District Bilaspur, through registered sale deeds dated 23.04.2003 from Abdul Rahim and Kumari Anjum Parveen. B. The land originally belongs to Sada Singh. After his death, his legal heirs Ram Singh and Dhela Bai (widow) inherited the subject lands and transferred parts of Survey Nos. 161/1 and 161/2 by way of gift (punya) to Ludhu Das Panika, whose name was recorded in the revenue records. C. Originally land was recorded in name of Sada Singh, after his death, his legal heirs namely Ram Singh, widow Dhela Bai inherited the property. Ram Singh and Dhela Bai transferred part of survey No.161/1 & 161/2 admeasuring 1 acre and 0.15 acre respectively by way of gift (Punya) in favour of Ludhu Das Panika. Name of Ludhu Das was entered in the revenue records. D. Ludhu Das Panika transferred the subject land through a registered sale deed dated 17.05.1974 for consideration of Rs. 4,000/-. The sale deed was signed by respondent No.1 namely Ramsingh as witness. Smt. Pushpa Bai sold 0.50 acre of survey No.161/3, 0.15 acre of survey No.161/4 to Abdul Rahim for consideration of Rs. 15,000/-. She executed a sale deed in favour of Kumari Anjum Parveen for consideration of Rs. 15,000/-. She executed a sale deed of survey No. 161/3 area 0.50 acre in favour of Kumari Anjum Parveen for consideration of Rs.15,000/- E. The petitioner purchased the subject property survey No.161/3 & 161/4 total area 0.65 acre from Abdul Rahim and Kumari Anjum Parveen through registered sale deed dated 23.04.2003. F. Ram Singh and his brother instituted a Civil suit for declaration of -3- title and possession against Smt. Pushpa Bai with respect to survey No.161/2 area 1.30 acre on 12.02.1989. They took various grounds in the Civil suit that no permission was accorded from the concerned Collector and land has been transferred contrary to the provisions of land revenue Court. The suit filed by the respondent No.1 was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.1989. G. The judgment & decree passed in Civil Suit No.104A/88 attained finality as no appeal was filed. H. Despite this, Respondent No.1 moved an application under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (for short, CGLRC) on 17.03.2011. The SDO (R) dismissed the application on 18.06.2013, and the appeal was also dismissed by the Additional Collector on 26.08.2015. I. Thereafter, revision was preferred before the Commissioner and same was allowed vide order dated 02.09.2016, leading to the filing of the present writ petition. 3) Learned counsel appering for the petitioner submitted that the Commissioner erred in allowing the revision ignoring the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Court, wherein the title and possession of Smt. Pushpa Bai were affirmed. It is further contended that the findings of the learned Civil Court are binding upon the revenue authorities, and the order passed by the learned Commissioner is in utter violation of settled principles of law. It is emphasized that the subject land was acquired through valid registered sale deeds; thus, the order impugned may be set-aside. 4) Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submitted that the land originally belonged to a member of the ab-original tribe and was illegally transferred in -4- violation of Section 165(6) of the CGLRC. It is argued that the Commissioner rightly held that the transaction from Ramsingh to Sada Singh was benami and void, and the subsequent transfers without permission of the Collector were contrary to law. Learned counsel further contended that the authorities failed to conduct proper inquiry into the matter and the status of the original landholder; thus, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6) The key issue before this Court is whether the Commissioner justified in interfering with concurrent findings recorded by the SDO and the Additional Collector, particularly in light of the decree passed by the learned Civil Court in Civil Suit No.104A/88. 7) It is not in dispute that the Civil suit filed by Respondent No.1 and his brother for declaration of title and possession over the subject property was dismissed by a competent Civil Court. The judgment dated 28.02.1989 attained finality and it affirmed the title of Smt. Pushpa Bai. 8) This Court finds merit in the submission of the petitioner that once the issue of title and possession was settled by a Civil Court, it was not open for Respondent No.1 to reopen the matter under Section 170-B of the CGLRC. The Commissioner failed to appreciate that the allegations of benami transaction and ownership were also the subject matter of the earlier Civil suit and had not been found proved. 9) Further, the Commissioner erred in reversing concurrent findings of fact -5- recorded by two revenue authorities without any new ground or clinching evidence. The findings of the Civil Court bind the revenue authorities as per settled law. 10) In view of the above, the Commissioner committed a manifest error of law by allowing the revision preferred by Respondent No.1. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 11) The order dated 02.09.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in Revision Case No. 9-A/23-2015-16 & order dated 18.10.2016 passed in revision case No.01/B-121/2016-17 by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur are hereby set-aside. The order dated 18.06.2013 passed by the SDO(R), Masturi and affirmed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur on 26.08.2015, are hereby restored. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim