Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors vs M/S Alok Infotech Private Limited And ... on 17 August, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (227) No. 362 of 2013
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Distt Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
2. The Tehsildar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G.
3. The Sub- Registrar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Lalita Bai, W/o Shri Chaitan Ram, by caste- Gond, R/o Village-
Pandaripani, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tehsil and District- Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
2. Sangeeta, D/o Samuvel, caste- Uraon, R/o Rajiv Nagar, Raigarh,
P.S. City Kotwali, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
3. The Board Of Revenue C.G., Bilaspur
---- Respondents
Writ Petition (227) No. 120 of 2013
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Distt Raigarh, CG
3. The Sub Registrar, Raigarh, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Distt Raigarh, CG
---- Petitioners Versus
1. M/s Shyamli Infraventure Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director Dhruv Agrawal, S/o Shri Sadhu Ram Agrawal, R/o Gajanandpuram, Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali, Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. Bhagat Ram S/o Ramsai,
3. Ghurai S/o Ramsai No.2 to 3 are by caste- Sawara (aboriginal Tribe), R/o Vill Gopalpur, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil & Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
4. The Board Of Revenue C.G., Bilaspur
---- Respondents Writ Petition (227) No. 245 of 2014
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Distt. Raigarh C.G. , Chhattisgarh
2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, P.S. Chakardhar Nagar, Distt. Raigarh C.G. 2
3. The Sub Registrar, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.
---- Petitioners Versus
1. M/s Alok Infotech Private Limited, Through Amit Rateriya, Director, Subhash Chowk, Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali Distt. Raigarh C.G.
2. Nirakar, S/o Ratan Lal, R/o Village Nawapali, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Tah And Distt. Raigarh C.G.
3. Umashankar, S/o Ratan Lal R/o Village Nawapali, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil And Distt. Raigarh C.G.
4. Harilal S/o Shri Dukalu, Caste- Gond, R/o Village Nawapali, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil And Distt. Raigarh C.G.
5. The Board Of Revenue, Chhattisgarh Bilaspur.
---- Respondents Writ Petition (227) No. 356 of 2013
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, C.G.
3. The Sub Registrar, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, C.G.
---- Petitioners Versus
1. Ramesh Kumar Bareth S/o Kunjram Bareth, R/o Patelpali, Raigarh, P.S. Jute Mill, Raigarh, Tahsil & Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. Gedi, S/o Shri Khora, by caste- Kanwar, R/o Regada, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil & District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
3. The Board Of Revenue, C.G., Bilaspur
---- Respondents Writ Petition (227) No. 357 of 2013
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Dist Raigarh, CG
3. The Sub Registrar, Raigarh, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Distt Raigarh, CG
---- Petitioner Versus
1. Bodhi Ram Uraon S/o Lt Shri Kartika Ram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Vill Dogitarai, Tah And Distt Raigarh, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. Munudai Uraon W/o Lt Shir Kartik Ram, aged about 82 years, R/o Vill Dogitarai, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tah And Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3
3. Sadhmati Wd/o Santosh
4. Samaru S/o Santosh
5. Laxmi D/o Santosh
6. Gavel S/o Santosh
7. Sushil Kumar S/o Joseph
8. Gula S/o Joseph No.3 to 8 are by caste- Uraon, R/o Vill Goverdhanpur, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tah And Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
9. M/s Venkatesh Krishi Sewa Kendra, Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil & Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
10. The Board Of Revenue C.G., Bilaspur,
---- Respondents Writ Petition (227) No. 358 of 2013
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, C.G.
3. The Sub Registrar, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, C.G.
---- Petitioners Versus
1. Baldeo Ram, S/o Shri Khageshwar Ram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Vill Jurda, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil & Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. Kalpesh Patel S/o Shri Jasubhai Patel, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Mukut Nagar, P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil & District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
3. The Board Of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur.
---- Respondents Writ Petition (227) No. 359 of 2013
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, C.G.
3. The Sub Registrar, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, C.G.
---- Petitioner Versus
1. Lalit Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Raj Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Vill Khairpur, Post- Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil & District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. Balaji Buildcon, Raigarh Balaji Builders And Developers, Raigarh, Through Its Partners:-
(a) Kailash Agrawal, S/o Parasram Agrawal, R/o Naya Ganj Raigarh, City Kotwali, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh 4
(b) Sushil Mittal, S/o Shiv Narayan, R/o Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali, Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
(c) Pawan Kumar Chauhan, S/o Chintaram Chauhan, R/o Dhimarapur, Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali,
(d) Sushil Kumar S/o Shiv Kumar Agrawal, R/o Madhuban Apartment, Kotara Road, Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali, Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
3. The Board Of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur.
---- Respondents Writ Petition (227) No. 360 of 2013
1. State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through The Collector, Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G.
3. The Sub Registrar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G.
---- Petitioners Versus
1. Pawan Chauhan, S/o Late Chintaram Chauhan, Caste- Gada, R/o Vill Dhimarapur, P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil & Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. Bahadur S/o Lalmani
3. Budhiyarin D/o Lalmani (Respondents No.2 and 3 are by Caste- Gada, r/o Jurda, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tah And Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
4. The Board Of Revenue C.G., Bilaspur
---- Respondents Writ Petition (227) No. 361 of 2013
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Distt Raigarh Chhattisgarh
2. The Tahsildar Raigarh, Distt Raigarh, CG.
3. The Sub Registrar Raigarh, Distt Raigarh, CG
---- Petitioner Versus
1. Kailash Agrawal S/o Vasudeo Agrawal R/o Vill Baikunthpur, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tah And Dist Raigarh,Chhattisgarh
2. Kumbhakaran S/o Shri Gosai, by caste- Kanwar, R/o Regada, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil & Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
3. The Board Of Revenue C.G., Bilaspur,
---- Respondents Writ Petition (227) No. 363 of 2013
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Distt Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5
2. The Tehsildar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh,
3. The Sub Registrar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G.
---- Petitioners Versus
1. Suresh Kumar Sharma S/o Goverdhan, caste- Bramhan, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Vill Jurda, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil & Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. Santosh Kumar Sharma S/o Vasudeo Sharam, R/o Raigarh, P.S. Kotwali, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
3. The Board Of Revenue C.G., Bilaspur
---- Respondents Writ Petition (227) No. 365 of 2013
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, Distt Raigarh, CG
3. The Sub Registrar Raigarh, Distt Raigarh, CG
---- Petitioners Versus
1. Salik Ram S/o Birbal Ram, by caste- Ganda, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Vill Navapali, Raigarh, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil- Pusour, Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. Pawan Kumar Mittal S/o Shri Shyam Sunder Mittal, R/o Near Shyam Mandir, Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil & District Raigarh, C.G.
3. The Board Of Revenue C.G., Bilaspur
---- Respondents Writ Petition (227) No. 366 of 2013
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, Dsitt Raigarh, CG
3. The Sub Registrar Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, CG
---- Petitioners Versus
1. Dauram Jaltare S/o Shri Krishnachandra Jaltare, R/o Bauli Well, Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil & Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. Natthu Lal S/o Jethram
3. Chitari Bai S/o Jethram
4. Nanaki S/o Jhitaku
5. Etawar Singh S/o Nanhi
6. Mangalu S/o Nanhi
7. Guruwaru S/o Jhitaku 6 No.2 to 7 are by caste- Lohar, R/o Vill Regada, PS. Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil & Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
8. The Board Of Revenue C.G., Bilaspur
---- Respondents Writ Petition (227) No. 367 of 2013
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, Dsitt Raigarh, CG
3. The Sub Registrar, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, CG
---- Petitioners Versus
1. Ashok Agrawal S/o Shri Bhemsen Agrawal, R/o Laxmipur, Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil & Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. Daharu S/o Samaru
3. Bhagirathi S/o Samaru
4. Gangaram S/o Samaru
5. Shyamlal S/o Samaru
6. Birbal S/o Bhagwatiya
7. Sita D/o Bhagwatiya
8. Koita D/o Bhagwatiya
9. Makala Wd/o Bhagwatiya
10. Kevara S/o Babulal
11. Vijay S/o Payarelal
12. Mandara S/o Pyarelal No.2 to 12 are by caste- Kharia, R/o Darramuda, P.S. Jute Mill, Raigarh, Tah Pusoure, Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
13. The Board Of Revenue C.G., Bilaspur
---- Respondents Writ Petition (227) No. 368 of 2013
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, CG.
3. The Sub Registrar, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, CG
---- Petitioners Versus
1. Dauram Jaltare S/o Shri Krishnachandra Jaltare, R/o Bauli Well, Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil & Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. Puniram S/o Samaru Gond, Caste- Gond, R/o Vill Dhanuhardera, P.S. Jut Mill, Raigarh, Tah- Pusoure, Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 7
3. The Board Of Revenue C.G., Bilaspur
---- Respondents Writ Petition (227) No. 369 of 2013
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Distt Raigarh Chhattisgarh
2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, CG.
3. The Sub Registrar, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, CG
---- Petitioners Versus
1. Sudarshan S/o Kunu Ram, by caste- Gond, R/o Vill Pandaripani, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tah And Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. Sangeeta D/o Samuvel, Caste- Uraon, R/o Rajiv Nagar, Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
3. The Board Of Revenue C.G. Bilaspur,
---- Respondents Writ Petition (227) No. 370 of 2013
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, Distt Raigarh, CG
3. The Sub Registrar, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, CG
---- Petitioners Versus
1. M/s Alok Infotech Private Limited, Through Amit Rateriya S/o Sanjay Rateriya, Director, M/s Alok Infotech Private Ltd, R/o Subhash Chowk, Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali, Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. Nirakar Gond S/o Ratan Lal Gond, Caste- Gond, R/o Nawapali, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tah And Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
3. The Board Of Revenue C.G., Bilaspur,
---- Respondents Writ Petition (227) No. 573 of 2013
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Dsitrict Raigarh C.G.,
2. The Sub Registar, Raigarh, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, District Raigarh C.G.
---- Petitioners Versus
1. Sadguru Developers, Through Its Partner Kailash Agrawal S/o Vasudeo Agrawal, R/o Dheemarapur Chowk, P.S. City Kotwali Tahsil And Distt. Raigarh C.G. 8
2. Khuduti Bai, age not known, Wd/o Lt. Shri Dharam Das, Caste- Panika R/o Village Urdana P.S. City Kotwali Tahsil And Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
3. The Board Of Revenue, C.G. Bilaspur
---- Respondents Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. Hariom Rai, Mr. Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Mr. Pawan Kumar, Mr. Vijay Deshmukh and Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocates for respective respondents.
Ms. Priyambada Singh, Dy. Govt. Advocate for State.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17-08-2022 Heard.
1. These matters were taken up yesterday but there was no representation on behalf of the private respondents, therefore, the matters were passed over for today. Today, these matters have been taken for hearing in first half but except learned counsel for petitioner i.e. State, no one has appeared on behalf of the private respondents, therefore, matters were passed over again. When matters were called again Mr. Hariom Rai, learned counsel for respondent in W.P.(227) No.120/2013 and W.P.(227) No.360/2013, Mr. Pawan Kumar Kashyap in W.P.(227) No.365/2013, Mr. Pawan Kumar, appearing on behalf of Mr. Vijay Deshmukh in W.P.(227) No.367/2013 and Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha in W.P.(227) No.245/2014 are present and in rest of matters there is no representation at all.
2. The issue involved in these cases is not res integra, therefore, 9 matter is heard finally in presence of learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. State and the learned counsel for the respondents in some of the cases.
3. In W.P.(227) No.362 of 2013, the order passed by Board of Revenue, Bilaspur dated 08.10.2010 is under challenge, likewise in other petitions, similar orders passed by the Board of Revenue have been challenged. By the impugned order, the Board of Revenue has permitted private respondents to sell their land in question and granted permission under Sections 165(6) and 165(7) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code of 1959"). The objections were filed after issuance of circular by the Collector, Raigarh dated 25/30-9-2004, wherein it was observed that permission to alienate the property obtained from the Government under Section 158(3) of the Code, 1959 shall not be granted by the order of authority not below than the rank of Collector and revenue authorities were directed to record specifically "untransferrable land obtained from Government" in the Revenue Records. The copy of circular issued by the Collector, Raigarh dated 25/30-9-2004 is given below:-
" dk;kZ y ; dysD Vj] jk;x<+] ftyk & jk;x<+ ( Nrrhlx<+) dzzekad @l0v0jk0@04@5688 jk;x<+] fnukad 25@30 9&2004 izfr] 1vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh (jk0) loZ
2.rglhynkj@vfr0rg0@uk;c rglhynkj (loZ)
3.jktLo fujh{kd (loZ) ftyk& jk;x<+ (N0x0) fo"k;%& 'kklu ls izkIr Hkwfe ds laca/k esaA 10 N0x0 Hkw&jktLo lafgrk 1959 dh /kkjk 185 dh mi/kkjk ([k) ds rgr dksbZ Hkh ,slk O;fDr tks dksbZ Hkwfe jkT; ljdkj ls /kkj.k djrk gS ;k dksbZ Hkh ,slk O;fDr tks /kkjk 158 dh mi/kkjk (3) ds v/khu HkwfeLokeh vf/kdkj esa Hkwfe /kkj.k djrk gS vFkok ftls dksbZ Hkwfe ljdkjh iV~Vsnkj ds #i es n[ky j[kus dk vf/kdkj jkT; ljdkj ;k dysDVj }kjk fn;k tkrk gS vkSj tks rRi'pkr ,slh Hkwfe dk HkwfeLokeh cu tkrk gS] ,slh Hkwfe dk varj.k dysDVj dh inJs.kh ls vfHkUu in Js.kh ds fdlh jktLo vf/kdkjh dh vuqKk tks ys[kc} fd, tkus okys dkj.kksa ls nh tkosxh] ds fcuk ugh djsxkA jk;x<+ vuqfoHkkx esa bl izdkj Hkwfe dk fodz; fcuk vuqefr ds gksus dh f'kdk;r izkIr gqbZ gS] tks mDr lafgrk ds ,slh izko/kkuks ds mYya?ku gSA vr vki [kljs es ,slh Hkwfe ij "'kklu ls izkIr Hkwfe vgLrkarj.kh;" ntZ djsaA vkids }kjk dk;Zokgh u djus ls ;fn bl izdkj ds Hkwfe dk voS/k #i ls fodz; gksuk ik;k tkrk gS rks lacaf/krksa ds fo#) dk;Zokgh dh tkosxh rFkk 'kklu dks gqbZ {kfr dh olwyh dh tkosxh lgh@& dysDVj jk;x<+ i`0dz0 @l0v0jk0@04 jk;x<+] fnukad 25&9&2004 izfrfyfi%& vij dysDVj] jk;x<+ dks vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq lwpukFkZ A lgh@& dysDVj jk;x<+
4. Against this circular, many cases were filed before the Board of Revenue and Board of Revenue granted permission to sell the property and consequently, sale-deeds were also executed.
5. In this batch of petitions, the State has assailed the orders passed by the Board of Revenue on different dates while exercising its power conferred under Section 08 of the Code, 1959 and granted permission to grant lease deed of the Government land and set aside the circular issued by the Collector, Raigarh, dated 25/30-9- 2004, wherein it was directed that a Government land shall not be transferred by the order of authority not below than the rank of 11 Collector. Further, the Revenue authorities were directed to record specifically "untransferrable land obtained from Government" in the revenue records. Against the order issued by the Collector, Raigarh, dated 25/30-9-2004, many applications were filed before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue, while exercising power under Section 08 of the Code, 1959 has allowed the applications moved by the private respondents and permitted them to alienate the property. The State has come before this Court against the orders passed by the Board of Revenue on different dates in different Miscellaneous Case Numbers.
6. An identical issue came up before this Court in W.P.(227) No.115 of 2013 in State of Chhattisgarh and Others Vs. Pawan Chauhan and Others decided on 23.08.2018, wherein the power and jurisdiction of Board of Revenue under Section 08 of Code of 1959 to consider and grant application for permission to sell the land under Section 165(6)(ii) of the Code of 1959, in light of Section 08 of the Code of 1959 only confers administrative jurisdiction to Board of Revenue, was under consideration. It was also considered that whether the power of the Board of Revenue under Section 08 of the Code of 1959 is akin to the power of High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
7. It is also observed in the case of State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Pawan Chauhan (Supra) that "the Board of Revenue has no business to lift the ban imposed by the Collector under the provisions of law, it could have been relaxed by the competent authority, if applied for by the aggrieved person, and in the manner provided under the 12 law. The Board of Revenue has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it and exceeded its authority by not only granting permission which has been conferred to the Collector under Sections 165(6)(ii) and 165(7) of the Code, 1959 but also further exceeded the jurisdiction by lifting/relaxing the ban imposed and by directing the competent authority to furnish 22 point information and further directing the Deputy Registrar to register the sale deed."
8. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment passed in case of State of Chhattisgarh and others Vs. Pawan Chauhan & Others (Supra) are reproduced here:-
10. In the erstwhile Madhya Bharat State, the Board of Revenue was constituted under the M.B. Board of Revenue Ordinance, 1948 dated the 15th January, 1948. Similarly, in the former Central Provinces, the Board of Revenue was constituted under the C.P. and Berar Board of Revenue Ordinance, 1949. In the former Madhya Pradesh, the provisions of the Ordinance were enacted as the C.P. and Berar Board of Revenue Act, 1949, which was later on repealed by the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1954. On the eve of the formation of the new Madhya Pradesh State, three Boards of Revenue were functioning for the Mahakoshal, Madhya Bharat and Vindhya Pradesh regions and these three Boards were integrated by notification dated the 1st November, 1956. Exercising the powers under Section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, the Government of the new Madhya Pradesh State constituted the Board of Revenue for the new State. This Board was exercising different powers and discharging different functions in the different regions according to the regional 13 laws. By virtue of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1954, the Board of Revenue functioning immediately before the 2nd October, 1959, was deemed to be the Board of Revenue constituted under this Code. Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 states as under: -
"3. Constitution of Board of Revenue--(1) There shall be a Board of Revenue for Madhya Pradesh consisting of a President and two or more other members as the State Government may, from time to time, think fit to appoint.
(2) The Board of Revenue as constituted and functioning for the several regions of this State immediately before the coming into force of this Code, hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as the existing Board, shall with effect from the date of coming into force of this Code, be deemed to be the Board of Revenue for Madhya Pradesh constituted under this section.
(3) The President and members of the existing Board shall be the first President and members respectively of the Board of Revenue for Madhya Pradesh.
11. At this stage, it would be appropriate to consider the report of the Select Committee in which following observations appear about the Board of Revenue: -
"The Committee noted that the Bill as drafted entrusted the Board of Revenue with judicial and administrative powers. It was explained to the Committee that the functions entrusted to the Board were primarily judicial but an enabling provision was made with a view to obviate difficulty in cases it was later on considered necessary to entrust superintendence of administrative side also to Board. The Committee sees no objection to 14 this. The Committee considered that in case the Board decides to sit at different places in the State on circuit there shall be a provision for enabling it to do so, considering the expanse of the State. A new clause 3-A (section 4 of the Code) has been inserted to serve this object."
12. At this stage, it would also be appropriate to notice Section 8 of the Code constituted under Section 3(2), which has been conferred the power of superintendence. Section 8 of the Code states as under: -
"8. Powers of superintendence of Board. --The Board shall, in respect of all matters subject to its appellate or revisional jurisdiction, have superintendence over all authorities in so far as such authorities deal with such matters and may call for returns."
13. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that the Board of Revenue has been conferred the power of superintendence in respect of all matters subject to its appellate or revisional jurisdiction and the said Board would exercise the power of superintendence over all authorities in so far as such authorities deal with such matters and also empowered to call for returns. It is not an unqualified provision and confers administrative jurisdiction to the Board subject to its appellate or revisional jurisdiction.
17. In the matter of Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. Employees' all India Union and others , the Bombay High Court defining the scope of supervisory jurisdiction held as under: -
"9. The main challenge to the above order is on the ground that the Industrial Court acted patently beyond its limited supervisory jurisdiction in taking upon itself the task of reappreciating the entire evidence and 15 passing a fresh order as if it was the original authority or an authority sitting in appeal over the order of the Labour Court. The jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under section 44 of the Act, according to the petitioner, is very limited. It is only supervisory in nature. In the instant case, the Industrial Court went far beyond its powers and in that view of the matter itself the impugned order is liable to be set aside and quashed."
18. In the matter of Hameed Kunju v. Nazim , the Supreme Court has held that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court should not decide the writ petition like original court and observed as under: -
"26. In any case, in our considered view, the executing court having seized of the applications filed by the respondent, there was no justification on the part of the High Court to have entertained the writ petition and decided them like an original court. All that the High Court, in such circumstances, could do was to request the executing court to dispose of the pending applications (IAs) filed by the respondent on their respective merits leaving the parties to challenge the orders once passed on such applications by filing appeal, before the appellate authorities. It was, however, not done.
40. In so doing, the High Court failed to see that the High Court curtailed the judicial powers of the trial Court in passing appropriate order on such applications. The High Court had no jurisdiction to issue directions to the trial court to pass a particular order by either allowing the application or rejecting it. All that the High Court could do in such case was to remand the case and leave the trial court to pass appropriate orders on the application(s) in exercise of its judicial discretion."16
25. The Code clearly confers the jurisdiction to the Collector under Section 165(6)(ii) of the Code to grant permission, therefore, the jurisdiction has to be exercised by the Collector only, neither the authority higher than Collector nor any other authority including the Board of Revenue can exercise that power. The Collector is one of the revenue officers mentioned in Section 11 of the Code. Whereas the Board of Revenue is not a Revenue Officer, but it is a Revenue Court, neither the Board of Revenue nor any member of the Board of Revenue is Revenue Officer. It is thus, clear that the Board of Revenue is a Revenue Court as provided under Section 31 of the Code. However, the Revenue Officers mentioned in Section 11 of the Code are both Revenue Officers and Revenue Courts. The Board being only a Revenue Court can administratively supervise the working of Revenue Officer under the provisions of the Code subject to its appellate and revisional jurisdiction, but under Section 8 of the Code no original jurisdiction of judicial revision has been conferred to the Board of Revenue, it is only administrative in nature. As such, the order passed by the Board of Revenue directly entertaining the application and granting that application in exercise of power which has not been statutorily conferred to him is absolutely without jurisdiction, as there is no semblance of jurisdiction conferred to the Board of Revenue under Section 8 of the Code to grant application under Sections 165(6)(ii) and 165(7) of the Code.
26. In the matter of Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Association of India (ALPAI) and others v. Director General of Civil Aviation and others, the Supreme Court while relying upon the earlier judgments held that an authority vested with the power to act under the statute alone should exercise its discretion following the procedure prescribed therein and observed as under:-
17"27. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and Pancham Chand v. State of H.P. observing that an authority vested with the power to act under the statute alone should exercise its discretion following the procedure prescribed therein and interference on the part of any authority upon whom the statute does not confer any jurisdiction, is wholly unwarranted in law. It violates the constitutional scheme.
28. In view of the above, the legal position emerges that the authority who has been vested with the power to exercise its discretion alone can pass the order. Even a senior official cannot provide for any guideline or direction to the authority under the statute to act in a particular manner."
27. There is yet another reason for not upholding the order, as the Board of Revenue has relaxed the ban imposed by the Collector under its jurisdiction, however, the Board of Revenue has no business to lift the ban imposed by the Collector under the provisions of law, it could have been relaxed by the competent authority, if applied for by the aggrieved person, and in the manner provided under the law. The Board of Revenue has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it and exceeded its authority by not only granting permission which has been conferred to the Collector under Sections 165(6)(ii) and 165(7) of the Code, but also further exceeded the jurisdiction by lifting/relaxing the ban imposed and directing the competent authority to furnish 22 point information and further directing the Deputy Registrar to register the sale deed. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order passed by the Board of Revenue granting permission under Section 165(6)(ii) of the Code and relaxing the ban deserves to be quashed being wholly without 18 jurisdiction and authority of law.
9. From the ratio laid down by Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Pawan Chauhan (Supra), it is crystal clear that the Board of Revenue has no power to relax or lift the ban imposed by the competent authority i.e. 'Collector'. The Board of Revenue has committed illegality by exceeding its jurisdiction, thereby granting permission to sale/alienate the Government land, which was banned by the Collector, Raigarh under its jurisdiction.
10. Consequently, the Writ Petitions are allowed and the orders passed by the Board of Revenue in respective Writ Petitions are hereby set aside and registration of sale deeds, if any, are also quashed.
11. With these observation(s)/direction(s), these petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Monika