1 2025:CGHC:20776 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1981 of 2025 1 - Smt. Jaya Gautam W/o Shri Dhanush Singh Gautam Aged About 64 Years R/o Quarter No. 15, Katulbod Saket Colony, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Divisional Commissioner Durg, Division And District Durg (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Durg Collectorate Office, District Durg (C.G.) 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 5 - The Additional Tahsildar Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 6 - The Patwari Patwari Halka No. 9, Village Arasnara, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Animesh Verma, Advocate For State/Respondent/s : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order In Chamber 06/05/2025 1. Heard Mr. Animesh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Santosh Bharat, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent/s. RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.06.10 11:44:54 +0530 2 2. Since the matter is heard and is being decided finally, therefore, I.A. No.02/2025, which is an application for exemption from filing typed copy is allowed. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the illegal, arbitrary and malafide acts of the respondent authorities by which the respondents have directed for removal of name of the petitioner from the revenue records even though the petitioner has purchased the property through a registered sale deed from the seller who was having Bhoomi swami rights over the said property. 4. By this instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief/s : “10.1 lt is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, direction thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 27/03/2025 (Annexure P-1). OR ALTERNATIVELY That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, direction thereby directing the learned Divisional Commissioner, Durg to hear and decide the Revenue Case No.235/A-74/2024-25 "Smt. Jaya Gautam Vs. State of C.G. strictly in accordance with law as has been held by the Hon'ble Constitutional Courts. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, direction thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 31/12/2024 (Annexure P-3). 3 10.4 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also be granted to the petitioners.” 5. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Khasra No.106, 127, 138 admeasuring about 1.14 Hectare, 0.64 Hectare and 0.50 Hectare respectively situated at village Arasnara, P.H.No. 15, Revenue Circle Durg-I, District Durg, by virtue of registered sale deed dated 28/07/2012 and 01/07/2013, and he is also in possession of the said property since 2012-2013, which is hereinafter referred to as the "subject property". The petitioner has purchased the aforesaid "subject property" after obtaining information under 14 Column vide letter dated 19/08/2011 from the concerned Tehsildar and Halka Patwari and after being satisfied and full payment of the sale consideration, the sale deed has been executed and thereafter the revenue records were mutated and the petitioner's name was entered as "Bhumiswami" in the revenue record and after due verification the “Kisan Kitab” has also been issued in favour of the petitioner. Further, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the "subject property" was recorded as "Patta" in the old revenue documents, in the name of the seller but this fact has not been disclosed to the petitioner from the seller of the "subject property" and the petitioner being a bonafide purchaser was required to move an application for regularization of the sale transaction. As per Section 158(3) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 4 1959, the seller and purchaser shall have Bhumiswami right even on the lease/patta land and this lease land can be transferred after expiration of the period of time period from the date of lease allotment. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved an application on 24/01/2024 before the concerned Collector for regularization of the sale under Section 165-B of the the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code,1959. (Annexure P-2). After registering the revenue case, the learned Collector have sought report from the concerned Additional Tehsildar and the Halka Patwari who have submitted a report in favour of the petitioner and the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) Durg, District Durg have also submitted a recommendation to the learned Collector for regularization of the same in favour of the petitioner. Despite recommendation of the Revenue Authority in favour of the petitioner, position of law in support of the petitioner and petitioner's status of a bonafide purchaser, the learned Collector without at all appreciating the facts of the case has dismissed the petitioner's application dated 24/01/2024 and further directed for updation of the revenue record by removing the name of the petitioner from the revenue records. (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the learned Collector, whereby the petitioner's application for regularization of the same has been rejected, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Durg on 07/03/2025 explaining various ground. The learned Commissioner while admitting the aforesaid 5 appeal for hearing, has refused to grant stay to the petitioner and thereby rejected the application under Section 52 of the Code, 1959, filed by the petitioner vide order dated 27/03/2025. (Annexure P-1), however, in similar factual circumstances a similarly situated person whose application for regularization of sale has also been dismissed by the learned Collector, this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 10/03/2025 passed in WPC No.888/2025 while hearing the writ petition against the order of the Collector has been pleased to stay the order of the Collector, as such, the petitioner prays for quashing of impugned order dated 27.03.2025, being the aforesaid order not only illegal and arbitrary but is in gross violation of the settled principles of law. He has also relied upon the order dated 04.03.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No.275 of 2013 “State of M.P. & others vs. Adhunik Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Gwalior and prayed for quashing of order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Durg, (C.G.). 6. Learned counsel for the State appearing on advance notice has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the respondent authorities have rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also peruse the material available on record. 6 8. Considering the fact that the petitioner being a bonafide purchaser moved an application vide dated 24.01.2024 before the concerned Collector for regularization of the sale transaction, as he has also been issued Kisan Kitab upon the certificate of concerned Additional Tehsildar and the Halka Patwari and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Durg, District Durg has also recommended to the learned Collector for regularization of the sale transaction, however the learned Collector without considering the genuineness of the case, dismissed the petitioner's application vide order dated 31/12/2024 on the ground that no permission has been taken before sale of the "subject property" which is required to be obtained from the Collector. 9. 9. Relying upon the judgment dated 04.03.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No.275 of 2013 “State of M.P. & others vs. Adhunik Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Gwalior, wherein it has been held in paras 21, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 & 43 as under :- “21. It was also contended that proviso to Sub-section 3 of Section 158 of MPLRC which prescribes that no person shall transfer land within a period of 10 years from the date of lease or allotment, is also not applicable as the same was inserted w.e.f. 28.10.1992 by MP Amendment Act No.17 of 1992 and much prior to said amendment, the rights of Bhumiswami had accrued in favour of predecessor in title of respondent/petitioners. 33. So far as contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant that as per the provisions contained under Section 165 (7-b) prior to transfer of a land which is held by a person from a State Government or a person holding land in Bhumiswami rights under sub-Section 3 of Section 158 of Code of whom the right to occupy the land is granted by the State Government or the Collector as a 7 Government lessee and who subsequently becomes Bhumiswami of such land shall not transfer such land without the permission of the Revenue Officer not below the rank of Collector and as the land in question has been transferred by the predecessor in title of the respondent/petitioner without permission of the Collector, therefore, the said sale are per se illegal and bad is concerned, the provisions of Section 165 (7-b) are required to be analyzed for its proper appreciation. Section 165 (7-b) of the Code for reference is reproduced herein below: 165 [(7-b) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), 4[a person who holds land from the State Government or a person who holds land in bhumiswami rights under sub- section (3) of Section 158] or whom right to occupy land is granted by the State' Government or the Collector as a Government lessee and who subsequently becomes bhumiswami of such land, shall not transfer such land without the permission of a Revenue Officer, not below the rank of a Collector, given for reasons to be recorded in writing.] 34. Section 165 (7-b) start with a non-obstante clause that not- withstanding anything contained in sub-Section 1 of Section 165 it lays down that subject to other provisions of Sub-Section 3 of Section 158 and provisions of Section 168, a Bhumiswami may transfer interest in his land, and it does not take away the substantial right of the Bhumiswami to enjoy the land, but it merely imposes a restriction on sale of such land except with the permission of Collector for certain category of persons who are: ‘who holds land from the State Government or holds land in Bhumiswami rights under sub- Section 3 of Section 158 or whom right to occupy the Government land is granted by the State Government or the Collector as a Government lessee and such persons who had subsequently acquired the Bhumiswami rights of such land. So far as the categories of persons who hold land from the State Government or a person who holds land in Bhumiswami rights under sub-section 3 of Section 158 are concerned, the said words were inserted in sub-Section (7-b) of Section 165 w.e.f 28.10.1992. Rest of the sub-Section (7-b) prior to its amendment in the year, 1992 was inserted by M.P. Act No.15 of 1980. Thus, prior to the insertion of sub-Section (7-b) into 8 Section 165 there was no such restriction and the rights of Bhumiswami had already been accrued to the predecessor in title of the respondent/petitioners. Now, the question would accrue is as to whether the insertion of sub- Section 7-b in Section 165 of MPLRC could be said to have retrospective effect and would also cover the cases in which substantial rights of Bhumiswami have already been accrued to the parties.’ 35. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of H.V. Thakur and Ors vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) had discussed the ambit and scope of amendment act and its retrospective operation and from the discussion made therein the legal position which is culled out is as follows: (i) A statute which affects substantive rights is presumed to be prospective in operation, unless made retrospective, either expressly or by necessary intendment, whereas a Statute which merely affects procedure, unless such a construction is texturally impossible, is presumed to be retrospective in its application, should not be given an extended meaning, and should be strictly confined to its clearly defined limits. (ii) Law relating to forum and limitation is procedural in nature, whereas law relating to right of action and right of appeal, even though remedial, is substantive in nature. (iii) Every litigant has a vested right in substantive law, but no such right exists in procedural law. (iv) A procedural Statute should not generally speaking be applied retrospectively, where the result would be to create new disabilities or obligations, or to impose new duties in respect of transactions already accomplished. (v) A Statute which not only changes the procedure but also creates a new rights and liabilities, shall be construed to be prospective in operation, unless otherwise provided, either expressly or by necessary implication. 36. From the aforesaid legal position it could safely be said that since the very insertion of sub-Section (7-b) of Section 165 of MPLRC affects substantive rights of the parties, then it could be said that it would have prospective operation and further the application of the said section had not in express mode had given the retrospective effect, therefore, since it is not a mere procedural amendment which could attach its effect retrospectively. 9 The Hon'ble Apex Court has even went to the extent that even a procedural statute should not be generally speaking be applied retrospectively, where the result would be to create new disabilities or obligations, or to impose new duties in respect of transactions already accomplished, thus, rights accrued to a party with the advent of sub- Section (7-b) of Section 165 of Code cannot be said to be curtailed and, thus, according to this Court, the applicability of the provisions of the said sub-Section would not be applicable to the present case. 37. 37. Further Section 158 (3) which confers Bhumiswami rights on certain category of persons was inserted w.e.f. 28.10.1992 which speaks of the persons who are holding land in bhumiswami rights by virtue of a lease granted to him by the State Government or the Collector or the Allotment Officer on or before the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1992 from the date of such commencement, and (ii) to whom land is allotted in bhumiswami right by the State Government or the Collector or the Allotment Officer after the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1992 from the date of such allotment in respect of such land, but herein case the predecessor in title of the present respondent/petitioners have already acquired Bhumiswami rights in the year, 1976-78 respectively, therefore, the provisions of such Section is also not applicable. 43. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the learned Single Judge had rightly observed that there is no provision under Section 165 (7-b) of the Code of 1959 to cancel a Patta rather it only says that Bhumiswami has no right to sale the land without prior permission of the Collector, but ignoring the fact that after grant of Bhumiswami rights in the year, 1976-78 lands in question have exchanged number of hands and, thereafter, approximately 40 years were passed at the time of passing of the impugned order and without issuing notices to the persons who had acquired rights in the said property, the said order was bad in law, according to this Court is also correct observation.” 10. In the present case, the recommendations have been made by the concerned respondent authorities in favour of the petitioner, 10 and petitioner has not been disclosed with fact regarding permission required to be taken from Collector, therefore, in view of the above discussion and considering the entire facts of the case and the material on record, this writ petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) is required to be set-aside and hereby set-aside. The respondent authorities are directed to examine the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and decide the matter expeditiously, within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi