1 2026:CGHC:14847 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 937 of 2014 1 - Bhola Prasad S/o Tulsi Sao R/o Village Chando, PO And PS Chando, Tahsil Samri Kusmi, Distt Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Tribunal Old Composite Building, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Assistant Registrar O/o Asstt. Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sales Officer, Jila Sahkari Krishi And Gramin Vikas Bank, Maryadit, Ambikapur, Distt Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Shri Chaturvedi, Clerk, Jila Sahkari Krishi And Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit, Ambikapur, Distt Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Bhagirathi @ Garju S/o Late Ramprasad, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Jariyo, PO And PS Chando, Tahsil Samri Kusmi, Distt Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Sarju S/o Late Ramprasad Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Jariyo, Po And PS Chando, Tahsil Samri Kusmi, Distt. Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Advocate. For State : Shri Ghanshyam Kashyap, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.04.08 17:21:44 +0530 2 30.03. 202 6 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 02.12.2014 passed by the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Tribunal, Bilaspur (in short the Tribunal) in Appeal Case No.8/2014 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent No.5&6 was allowed and the order date 26.06.2014 passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, was set aside and the order dated 01.10.2023 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society Balrampur was affirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the father of respondent No.5&6 namely Ram Prasad borrowed a loan of Rs.28,000/- on 11.03.1994 from Zila Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank under the Scheme of NABARD for the purposes of Well and Water Pump. He mortgaged his land with the Bank against the sanctioned loan which was situated at village Jariyo, PH No.14, Tehsil Kusmi District Balrampur Ramanujganj. Due to non payment of loan installments, Surguja Sahkari Vikas Bank Maryadit, Ambikapur, issued a notice on 28.08.1999 to the father of respondents No.5&6 and directed him to pay installment of borrowed amount otherwise the bank would start recovery proceeding and to put the mortgaged property in auction. On 12.07.1999 the Board of Directors of Zila Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank passed a resolution to take action against the father of respondents No.5&6 for recovery of loan amount then another notice was issued on 10.04.2008 for auction of mortgaged property of the father of respondents No.5&6 and asked them to deposit the outstanding amount within 15 days or else the auction proceeding would be carried out. Another notice was issued to 3 them on 05.05.2009, but neither any objection was raised nor they file any reply to the notices. The subsequent notice dated 22.03.2013 was also not replied by the respondents No.5&6 and then a proclamation was also made in village through village Chowkidar from 20.05.2013 to 22.05.2013. Thereafter on 23.05.2013 the auction proceeding was started and the petitioner being the highest bidder purchased the property in auction for a consideration of Rs.1,65,100/-. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short, the Code) for mutation of the said land in his favour. In the mutation proceeding the respondent No.5 filed an objection under Order 7Rule 4 of CPC that the respondents No.5&6 belong to Scheduled Caste (ST) category and their land cannot be auctioned. The Tehsildar rejected their objection and passed the order of mutation on 31.07.2014. The respondents No.5&6 filed an objection before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies Balrampur on the ground that the land belonging to ST category community cannot be auctioned without proper notice of initiation of auction proceeding. The Assistant Registrar, vide its order dated 11.10.2013 refused to confirm the sale by auction in favour of the petitioner on the ground that respondents No.5&6 belong to ST category. The petitioner thus challenged the order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies Balrampur before the Joint Registrar Surguja Division Ambikapur. The Joint Registrar vide its order dated 26.06.2014 set aside the order passed by the Assistant Registrar dated 11.10.2013 on the ground that the respondents No.5&6 failed to produce any documents which shows that they belong to ST category. 4 The respondents No.5&6 again challenged the order dated 26.06.2014 passed by passed by the Joint Registrar before the Tribunal at Bilaspur by filing appeal under Section 78(1)(b) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (in short, the Act, 1960). The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal on 02.12.2014 and quashed the order dated 26.06.2014 passed by the Joint Registrar holding that respondents No.5&6 belong to Nagesia caste which comes under ST category and as per the provisions of Section 41 of the Act, 1960 and Section 165(1) of the Code, the land of person belonging to ST category cannot be auctioned. The said order dated 02.12.2014 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondents No.5&6 does not belong to Nagesia caste, but belong to Kisan caste which is not included in the list of Scheduled Tribes. There is a notification issued by the State Govt. on 04.02.2011 with the effect that in the Surguja district, the certificate of Nagesia are being issued to the persons belonging to Kisan caste whereas Kisan caste is not included in the list of Scheduled Tribe within the State of Chhattisgarh and no any caste certificate should be issued in the name of Kiasan Nagesia and no any benefit of reservation shall be extended to them. He would further submit that when the document shows that respondents No.5&6 belong to Kisan caste, the prohibition under the Act, 1960 or the Code are not applicable for auction of the land of respondents No.5&6. The concerned Halka Patwari of PH No.5, Tehsil Samri/Kusmi, District Balrampur, issued the pedigree (Misal Record) of the family of respondents No.5&6 as on 1946 in which the ancestors 5 of respondents No.5&6 shown to be belongs to Kisan and thus the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous. The petitioner has purchased the land in auction and paid sale consideration with the Bank and therefore he is entitled for mutation of his name in revenue records after confirmation of sale in his favour. The order dated 02.12.2014 passed by the Tribunal, Bilaspur may be set aside and the order dated 26.06.2014 passed by the Joint Registrar, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, may be affirmed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and would submit that from all the documents the caste of respondents No.5&6 is shown to be Nagesia and not Kisan. Although in the document Ex.P/15 which is the pedigree of Ram Prasad of the year 1946, shown to be Kisan, but in absence of any sufficient proof, it cannot be considered that Ram Prasad or respondents No.5&6 belong to Kisan caste for the reason that it is the pedigree shown to be prepared on the basis of Surguja State Settlement Record of the year 1946, however, the said pedigree was issued by the Patwari of PH No.8, Tehsil Samri/Kusmi, District Balrampur. It is not a certified copy obtained from competent authority. The said copy is issued on 29.09.2014 by the Patwari. Even it is not mentioned in the said pedigree that it is a true copy or certified copy. In the bank documents the caste of Ram Prasad was shown to be Nagesia caste and Nagesia caste is entered at serial No.32 of the list of Scheduled Tribes in the State of Chhattisgarh. He would further submit that the petitioner himself have submitted the social status certificate of respondent No.6 along with the submission memo dated 6 14.01.2015 in which also he was issued the social status certificate of Nagesia caste. Though a notification was issued by the State Govt. on 04.02.2011 that restricts issuance of social status certificate to the persons belonging to Kisan Nagesia caste which comes under the ST category, but the petitioner could not be benefited as the respondents No.5&6 not belong to Kisant caste, but they belong to Nagesia caste which comes under the Scheduled Tribe community and there is restrictions under the Act, 1960 as well as the Code that the land belonging to Scheduled Tribe community cannot be put to auction. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly passed the order on 02.12.2014 which does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused material annexed with the petition. 6. It is not in dispute in the case that the father of respondent No.5&6 borrowed an amount of Rs.28,000/- from Zila Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank and mortgaged the subject land with the Bank. It is also not in dispute that the father of respondent No.5&6 could not pay the amount of loan and proceeding for recovery of loan amount by auction of the mortgaged property was initiated. 7. The core issue involved in the present petition is whether the respondent No.5&6 belong to Kisan caste and there is no restriction for auction of their land mortgaged with the Bank, or whether the respondent No.5&6 belong to Nagesia caste which comes under Scheduled Tribe community and their land cannot be put to action by the Bank. 7 8. From perusal of documents Annexure P/2 annexed with the petition which are the documents of mortgage deed in which the land of the father of respondent No.5&6 were mortgaged and Annexure P/3 to P/7 which are notices issued by the Bank to Ram Prasad, his caste is being shown as Nagesia. In these notices nowhere it is mentioned that he belongs to Kisan caste. Even the sale officer of Zila Sahkari Krishi and Gramin Vikas Bank, Ambikapur, also issued notice for auction of the land of Ram Prasad Nagesia. Further, in the bid sheet also the caste of Ram Prasad is being shown as Nagesia. Further, the petitioner himself has submitted a copy of social status certificate of respondent No.6 along with submission memo dated 14.01.2015 and according to which the caste of respondent No.6 is Nagesia which comes under the Scheduled Tribe community. The petitioner could not establish that Ram Prasad or respondents No.5&6 belong to Kisan caste or they do not come under Scheduled Tribe community. However, the documents clearly demonstrate that Ram Prasad and respondents No.5&6 belong to Nagesia caste which comes under Scheduled Tribe community. Though this court is not deciding the caste of Ram Prasad or respondents No.5&6, but only to consider the claim of the petitioner, this court examines the claim of respondents No.5&6 as well as the petitioner, subject to determination of their social status by the competent authority. 9. The petitioner sought benefit notification dated 04.02.2011, Annexure P/13 which also does not have any force for the reason that he has failed to produce any document that respondent No.5&6 belong to Kisan caste and Kisan Nagesia does not come under the Scheduled 8 Tribe community and the State Govt. restricted for issuance of any social status certificate to such persons who are claiming that they belong to Kisan Nagesia caste, however, in the present case, the documents reflects that the respondent No.5&6 belong to Nagesia caste and not the Kisan Nagesia. 10.Section 41(A)(5) of the Act, 1960 creates a bar from alienating the property of Scheduled Tribe community in auction which reads as under: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to empower the society to sell any land or interest therein of a person belonging to an aboriginal tribe, which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe by the State Government by notification under sub-section (6) of section 165 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No. 20 of 1959) to a person not belonging to such Tribe.” 11. When the Bank authorities were having knowledge that the respondent No.5&6 or their father Ram Prasad belong to Scheduled Tribe community and Nagesia caste, their land could not be put to auction, yet they conducted the auction and sold the land to the petitioner. Another fact reflects from the order passed by the Tribunal is that the auction was carried out by respondent No.4. From perusal of order sheets of the auction proceeding it also transpires that on 23.05.2003, Rs.1000/- from each bidders were being deposited before bidding and their receipts are available in the records of auction proceeding. After the completion of auction, their amount of Rs.1000/- were refunded to unsuccessful bidders and obtained their acknowledgment. From perusal of records it also transpires that along with petitioner Bhola Prasad, the other bidders Brahmdev, Balram and Jageshar deposited 9 Rs.1000/- which were refunded to them after the auction proceeding including the petitioner. When the petition also accepted the refund of Rs.1000/-, it cannot be said that the auction dated 23.05.2013 is completed in his favour. From perusal of bid sheet it also transpires that in the third call, Balram put the value of Rs.95000/- whereas the respondent No.4 has mention it in the bid sheet as Rs. 85000/-and there are overwriting in various places in the said bid sheet. Therefore, bid sheet was also doubted by the Tribunal. 12.On both these grounds, the Cooperative Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Surguja Division dated 26.06.2014 and affirmed the order passed by the Assistant Registrar dated 11.10.2013. 13.Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the record of the case, I do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Cooperative Tribunal. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder