-1- 2025:CGHC:19874 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3239 of 2019 Shyama Bai W/o Shri Vishwambhar Lal Sahu Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Kutela Thana Saraipali Tahsil Saraipali District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station House Saraipali District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Amrit Lal S/o Shri Balveer @ Karl Roheldar (Mother Premkumari @ Filomina), R/o Village Kutela Chowk Kutela P.H. No. 19, Tahsil Saraipali, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Danbhushan S/o Balveer @ Karl Roheldar (Mother Premkumari @ Filomina), R/o Village Kutela Chowk Kutela P.H. No. 19, Tahsil Saraipali, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Anup Kumar S/o Balveer @ Karl Roheldar (Mother Premkumari @ Filomina), R/o Village Kutela Chowk Kutela P.H. No. 19, Tahsil Saraipali, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Lusia Widow Of Ranbabadur R/o Village Kutela Chowk Kutela P.H. No. 19, Tahsil Saraipali, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate & Mr. Gajendra Sahu, Adv. For Respondents No.2 to 5 : Mr. H. S. Patel, Advocate Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.05.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be please to call for records from respondents. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be please to quash the impugned order of learned trial court/S.D.O. (Revenue) dated 29.7.2019 Appeal Ra. Pra. Kra.35-A-74 year 2016-2017 Saraipali District Mahasamund (C.G.). Or in alternate remand the case to the learned trial Court/S.D.O. (Revenue) Saraipali to ascertain that whether the respondent no.2 to 5 are children of Balveer or Karl Roheldar. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be directed to S.D.O. (Revenue) to enquire the issue whether the deceased Prem Kumari was ever a wife of any Balveer Uraon or as she claim wife of Karl Roheldar. 10.4 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deemed, just and proper in the present circumstances, of the case is awarded to the petitioner.” 2) Brief facts of the present case are as under:- A. The mother of Respondents No. 2 to 5, Smt. Prem Kumari, filed an application under Section 170(B) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code before the SDO (Revenue), Saraipali for the reversion of land bearing Survey Nos. 1233 and 1235, area 0.29 acres (part of old Survey No. 541, area 0.425 acres) situated at Village Kutela. B. The application was allowed by the SDO (R) Saraipali vide order dated 30.03.1998 in Revenue Case No. 1A-23/1997-98, whereby the land was ordered to be returned to Prem Kumari from the -3- purchaser Shyama Bai (the petitioner herein). C. The petitioner challenged the said order before the District Collector, Mahasamund, in Appeal No. 117A-23/1997-98, which was dismissed vide order dated 04.01.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2222/2000 before the High Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2011. The Coordinate Bench of this Court also directed the petitioner to pay Rs.12,000/- to Prem Kumari. D. Respondents No. 2 to 5 claiming to be the legal heirs of the deceased Prem Kumari moved an application before the SDO (Revenue), Saraipali for the execution of the order passed on 30.03.1998. E. The petitioner objected to the execution proceedings raising issues with regard to the social status of Respondents No. 2 to 5 and their mother, alleging that they are not members of the Scheduled Tribe community but rather follow Christianity. F. The petitioner alleged that on the basis of a forged caste certificate, Respondents No. 2 to 5 took the benefit of Section 170 B of the Code, 1959. It is pleaded that a complaint case for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC was filed against them but they were acquitted. 3) Mr. Ashok Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially proceedings under Section 170(B) of the CGLRC were initiated by Prem Kumari/wife of Karl Rohender. The entire litigation concluded against the petitioner and the writ petition was also dismissed. It is argued that the execution was not carried out during the lifetime of Prem Kumari. He would further submit that Respondents No. 2 to 5 are trying to execute the order, though they do not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community, and thus, they -4- are not entitled to get any benefit under Section 170(B) of the CGLRC and learned SDO(R) committed an error of law while rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner; thus, he would pray that the instant writ petition may be allowed. 4) Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the objection raised by the petitioner during the execution proceedings was never raised before the SDO(R), Collector or High Court. He would further submit that the petitioner was afforded ample opportunities at every stage. The order passed by the SDO(R) was affirmed by the Collector and the High Court. The issue of caste and relationship was raised for the first time during the execution proceedings, and the learned Sub Divisional Officer rightly rejected it and thus the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the file. 6) The original order passed by the SDO (R) Saraipali under Section 170(B) of the CGLRC on 30.03.1998 was challenged by the petitioner before the Collector and in W.P. No. 2222/2000 before this Court and the petitions were dismissed. The order passed in W.P. No. 2222/2000 attained finality, and the petitioner was directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.12,000/- to Prem Kumari, which the petitioner failed to comply with. 7) Respondents No. 2 to 5, being the legal representatives of Prem Kumari, moved an application for the execution of the original order. The petitioner raised an objection regarding the social status of Respondents No. 2 to 5 and the -5- relationship between Prem Kumari and Karl Rohender for the first time in the execution proceedings, which is not tenable in my opinion as these grounds were never raised by the petitioner in the proceedings under Section 170(B) of the Code, 1959, the appeal and the writ petition whereas the petitioner was provided ample opportunities during the original proceedings to raise all relevant issues. 8) In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition as the petitioner is making prayer to reopen the issues, which have already been adjudicated upon and settled. Further, the petitioner failed to comply with the orders passed by the SDO(R), the Collector, and the High Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. 9) The petitioner is directed to comply with the orders passed by the SDO (Revenue) dated 30.03.1998 and the order passed in W.P. No. 2222/2000. The petitioner shall pay the cost of Rs. 10,000/- to Respondents No. 2 to 5 within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim