URMILA DEVI vs VIKAS KUMAR AGRAWAL

Court: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case type: WRIT PETITION ALL ORDERS CIVIL RELATED TO OTHER MATTER
Decided on: 01-04-2026

<div> 1 2022:CGHC:20686 2026:CGHC:15034 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3810 of 2021 Reserved on 11/03/2026 Pronounced on 01/04/2026 Urmila Devi W/o Late Muneshwar Sai, Aged About 66 Years, Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Chetwa, Tahsil Kansabel, District- Jashpur (C.G.) (Non-Applicant No.1) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Vikas Kumar Agrawal S/o Brajbhushan, Aged About 39 Years, Caste Agrawal, R/o Village Kunkuri, Tahsil Kunkuri, District- Jashpur (C.G.) (Applicant) 2 - Mukesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Ramniwas Agrawal, 3 - Radheshyam Agrawal S/o Ramniwas Agrawal, 4 - Gouri Shankar Agrawal S/o Manohar Agrawal, 5 - Poonam Chandra Agrawal S/o Manohar Agrawal, 6 - Umesh Agrawal S/o Manohar Agrawal, The respondents No.2 to 6 belong to Caste Agrawal, R/o Village Kansabel, District- Jashpur (C.G.) (Non-Applicants No. 2 to 6) 7 - The Commissioner, Surguja Division (Ambikapur), District- Surguja (C.G.), 8 - The Collector Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.), 9 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondents 2 2022:CGHC:20686 For Petitioner : Shri Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate appears along with Shri Sanchit Bhatt, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 6 : Shri B. P. Sharma, Advocate appears along with Shri M. L. Sakat and Ms. Koushiki Kumari, Advocates. For State/Respondents No.7 to 9 : Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Deputy Advocate General. Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J CAV Judgment 1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner being an aboriginal has questioned the legality and propriety of the order dated 10.08.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh in Revenue Revision Case No. 202103960100022/29/A- 23/2020-21, whereby the Revisional Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code, 1959’), while reversing the order dated 19.02.2021 passed by the Collector, Jashpur in Appeal Revenue Case No.201911030100011/6/2019-20 affirming the order dated 04.10.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bagicha, District Jashpur in Revenue Case No.13/A-23/14-15 for restoration of the land in question. 2. The facts, which are essential for adjudication of this petition, are that the land bearing Khasra No.427/3 and 427/4 admeasuring 0.725 hectare and 0.721 hectare, respectively, total admeasuring 1.446 hectare situated at Village Chetva, Tehsil Kansabel, District Jashpur was originally held by one Muneshwar Sai (since deceased now represented by his widow - Urmila Devi), who was the Kanwar by caste belonging to the aboriginal and, vide registered deed of sale dated 3 2022:CGHC:20686 06.03.1973, he had sold the alleged suit land to one Sadhu Sai for a consideration of Rs.3,000/-, while putting him in possession thereon. Perusal of the record would reveal further that said Sadhu Sai after obtaining the permission for its alienation from the Collector, Jashpur vide order dated 28.06.1974 (Annexure P-3) as required under Section 165(6) of the Code, 1959, sold it to one Manohar Lal Agrawal, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, by executing a registered deed of sale dated 18.07.1974 for a consideration of Rs.3,500/- and, the revenue papers were, accordingly, recorded in his name, who, then applied for partition while approaching the court of Nayab Tehsildar, Jashpur, where the said authority vide its order dated 11.07.1980 has divided the land in question amongst his heirs. 3. The aforesaid transaction made in favour of said Sadhu Sai was held to be benami at the instance of said Manohar Lal Agrawal, and therefore, the transaction made in his (Manohar Lal Agrawal) favour on 18.07.1974 was, accordingly, held to be a fraudulent one in an enquiry held by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bagicha under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 based upon the application moved by said Muneshwar Sai on 23.01.2015 and, the order as passed by the said authority on 04.10.2019 was affirmed further by the Collector, Jashpur vide its order dated 19.02.2021 in an appeal preferred by respondent No.1 – Vikas Kumar Agrawal. 4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, a revision was preferred by respondent No.1 before the Commissioner, Surguja, who, in turn, vide its order impugned has reversed the aforesaid order and, being aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is 4 2022:CGHC:20686 the widow of said Muneshwar Sai, the erstwhile owner of the land in question. 5. Shri Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/aboriginal submits that the finding recorded by the Commissioner, Surguja holding that the alleged transactions are not benami, while reversing the order of the Collector, Jashpur affirming the findings of the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the petitioner/aboriginal and her witnesses recorded before the court of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby erred in holding that the alleged transaction is a valid one. Further of his contention is that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, namely, Manohar Lal Agrawal had, in fact, purchased the alleged land for his own benefit, while forwarding to said Sadhu Sai, therefore, the Sub Divisional Officer as well as the Collector, Jashpur after considering the evidence of the petitioner/aboriginal and her witnesses has concurrently held the alleged transaction to be a benami one, which ought not to have been disturbed by the Commissioner, Surguja, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. In support, he placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Bhaiji vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Thandla And Others reported in (2003) 1 SCC 692 . 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing fo the respondents, while inviting attention towards the application dated 23.01.2015, made by said Muneshwar Sai, submits that since said aboriginal was in need of money and was searching for a purchaser, therefore, said Manohar 5 2022:CGHC:20686 Lal Agrawal in order to help him, got the alienation of his land in favour of said Sadhu Sai while producing himself to be one of the witnesses of the transaction made in his favour on 06.03.1973. As such, it cannot be said that while forwarding him (Sadhu Sai), he had purchased the land in question benami in his name for his own benefit. While placing reliance upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Khora (Dead) through legal heirs and others vs. Mohar Sai and Others reported in (2023) 14 SCC 767 submits further that the Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to examine the issue of benami, therefore, neither the alleged transaction made in favour of said Sadhu Sai was a benami one, nor could it be held to be benami by the said Revenue Authorities. The order impugned passed by the Commissioner, Surguja, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity, so as to call for any interference in this petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8. Admittedly, one Muneshwar Sai, the husband of the petitioner, was the erstwhile owner of the land in question bearing Khasra No.427/3 and 427/4 admeasuring 0.725 hectare and 0.721 hectare, respectively, total admeasuring 1.446 hectare situated at Village Chetva, Tehsil Kansabel, District Jashpur. The alleged land held by him was purchased by one Sadhu Sai from him, who was also the aboriginal, under the registered deed of sale dated 06.03.1973 for a consideration of Rs.3,000/- and the revenue papers were, accordingly, recorded in his name, who after sometime, i.e., on 06.07.1973, moved an application before the Collector, Jashpur seeking permission to alienate the alleged land to 6 2022:CGHC:20686 said Manohar Lal Agrawal, the non-aboriginal, under Section 165(6) of the Code of 1959. In the said proceeding, a report, dated 23.02.1974 was submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), before the Collector, Jashpur opining the prevailing rate of the land in question, which is “Tand” in nature, to be Rs.364/- per acre and, the sale consideration for alienation of the land in question was, thus, opined to be justified as it was more than the prevailing rate and, upon its due consideration, the permission was accorded by the Collector, Jashpur vide its order dated 28.06.1974 in the said proceeding registered as Revenue Case No.211/A-21/1972-73 and, thereafter, he (Sadhu Sai) sold the alleged land to him under the registered deed of sale dated 18.07.1974. After acquiring the land in question as such, he, then, applied for its partition and was partitioned, accordingly, amongst his sons, namely, Ramniwas Agrawal, Gauri Shankar Agrawal, Poonam Chandra Agrawal and Umesh Agrawal by the Nayab Tehsildar, Jashpur vide its order dated 11.07.1980. 9. After the afflux of four decades, an application was made by said erstwhile owner – Muneshwar Sai before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) on 23.01.2015 under Section 170-B of the Code of 1959 for restoration of the land in question with the allegation that said Manohar Lal Agrawal, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, the non- aboriginal, while forwarding said Sadhu Sai, the aboriginal, had purchased his land under the registered deed of sale dated 06.03.1973 at Jashpur in his presence and his known witness, namely, Sone Sai, who was the resident of a different Village, i.e., Village Jumaikela and got the revenue papers recorded in his (Sadhu Sai) name, while 7 2022:CGHC:20686 retaining the possession to himself and, thereafter got the registered deed of sale dated 18.07.1974 in his name after obtaining the sanction from the Collector, Jashpur vide order dated 28.06.1974 passed in Revenue Case No.211/A-21/1972-73 and obtained the revenue papers recorded in his name. It was, thus, alleged by him that while forwarding him (Sadhu Sai) as such, he succeeded to get the registered deed of sale executed in his favour fraudulently and, therefore, entitled to get it restored. 10. In response to the aforesaid application, it was stated by the respondents that the alleged land was not purchased by their predecessor-in-interest, namely, Manohar Lal Agrawal benami while forwarding said Sadhu Sai, as alleged by the petitioner and instead, he had purchased the same from him on 18.07.1974 for a consideration of Rs.3,500/- only after due permission of the Collector as required under Section 165(6) of the Code, 1959. It is, therefore, contended that the application as framed much after the period of 40-41 years, deserves to be rejected. 11. In order to consider the aforesaid allegation, it is necessary to examine the said application, made on 23.01.2015, which reads in its verbatim as under:- U;k;ky; Jheku~ vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh egksn; dkalkcsy] ftyk&t’kiqj ¼N-x-½ mfeZyk nsoh ifr Lo- equs’oj lk;] mez 61 o”kZ] tkfr daoj fuoklh& psVok rglhy dkalkcsy ftyk&t’kiqj ¼N-x-½ cuke jkefuokl vxzoky firk Lo- euksgj yky vxzoky ,oa vU; 3 8 2022:CGHC:20686 lHkh fuoklh dkalkcsy] rglhy&dkalkcsy ftyk&t’kiqj ¼N-x-½ vukosndx.k vkosnu i= vUrxZr /kkjk 170 ¼[k½ N-x- Hkw&jktLo lafgrk vkosnd Jheku~ ls fuEu fuosnu djrk gS%& 01 ;g fd vkosnd ,oa vukosndx.k mijksDr nf’kZr irs ds LFkk;h fuoklh gSaA 02 ;g fd xzke & psVok] i-g-ua- &90 jk-fu-ea-&dkalkcsy] fodkl[k.M dkalkcsy rglhy& dkalkcsy] ftyk&t’kiqj ¼N-x-½ esa vkosnd ds uke ls [k-ua- 427 jdkc 3-253 gS Hkwfe] Hkwfe Lokeh gd dh Hkwfe fLFkr FkhA 03 ;g fd vkosnd daoj tkfr dk gS tks vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds Js.kh esa vkrs gSaA 04 ;g fd vukosndx.k ds firk rFkk vukosnd dz- 4 ds nknk Lo- euksgj yky vxzoky Qjojh 1973 esa vkosnd ds ikl vk;k vkSj dgk fd vki yksx xkSafV;k gS bruh tehu D;k djsaxs jksM fdukjs dh tehu tks [k-ua- 427 jdck 3-253 gS] Hkwfe gedks ns nhft, ge vki dk uke djsaxsA 05 ;g fd vukosndx.k ds firk rFkk nknk Lo- euksgj yky vxzoky ds dgus ij vkosnd us vukosndx.k ds firk euksgj yky vxzoky ls dgk eSa daoj tkfr dk fuoklh gwaA vki xSj vkfnoklh gS] vki esjh tehu dSls ys ldrs gSaA jftLVªh esjh tehu dk vkids uke ls ugha gks ldrk gS] vr% eq>s ekQ dhft,A 06 ;g fd vkosnd ds ifjokj esa iSls dh vko’;drk gksus ds dkj.k og iSls ds fy, b/kj&m/kj iSls dk ryk’k dj jgk Fkk] blh chp irk yxus ij vukosnd.k ds firk Lo- euksgj yky vxzoky xzke psVok ds fuoklh lk/kw lk; tks vkfnoklh gS] dks lkeus dj mDr Hkwfe equs’oj lk; ls dz; djok dj iathd`r fodz;ukek fnukad 06-03-1973 dks t’kiqjuxj esa vius xokg] lksu lk; tks xzke tqebZdsyk dk jgus okyk gS rFkk nwljk xokg Lo;a cudj mDr iathd`r cSukek fu”ikfnr djk;kA 07 ;g fd vukosndx.k ds firk Lo- euksgj yky vxzoky lk/kq lk; dks lkeus djds equs’oj lk; daoj dh tehu dks tks fd vkfnoklh gS dks dz; djok;k rFkk dz; djokus ds i'pkr~ Lo;a [kpZ dj vukosndx.k ds firk Lo- euksgj yky vxzoky equs’oj dh tehu ij jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa equs’oj dk uke dVokdj Hkwfe esa lk/kq lk; dk uke ntZ djok;k rFkk mijksDr Hkwfe ij viuk dCtk cuk;s j[kkA 08 ;g fd vukosndx.k ds firk Lo- euksgj yky vxzoky [k-ua- 427 jdck 3- 253 gS Hkwfe ij lk/kq lk; dk uke gksus dk ykHk mBkrs gq, rFkk f[kyk fiykdj lk/kq lk; dks vius i{k esa djrs gq, rFkk iSls nsdj fnukad 06-07- 1973 dks lk/kq lk; ls ,d vkosnu Hkwfe fcdzh xSj vkfnoklh dks djus ds laca/k esa vkosnu i= U;k;ky; dysDVj jk;x<+ ¼e-iz-½ ds ;gka izLrqr djok;k tks 9 2022:CGHC:20686 jktLo izdj.k dz- 211@v&21@1972&1973 gSA 09 ;g fd fnukad 28-06-1976 dks dysDVj ls vuqefr feyus ds i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe vukosndx.k ds firk Lo- euksgj yky vxzoky lk/kq lk; ls fnukad 18- 07-1974 dks iathd`r fodz; i= ds ek/;e ls vius uke ij djkdj jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa vius uke ls ukekarj.k djk fy;k gSA 10 ;g fd vukosndx.k ds firk Lo- euksgj yky vxzoky vius i{k esa mDr Hkwfe dk [kkrk foHkktu djus gsrq uk;c rglhynkj t’kiqj ds U;k;ky; esa vkosnu izLrqr fd;k tks izdj.k dz- 03@v&27@1979&80 gS ftlesa fnukad 11-07-1980 dks uk;c rglhynkj }kjk vkns’k djus ds i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dk [kkr foHkktu vukosndx.k dz- 1] 2] 3 rFkk 4 vukosndx.k ds firk vkse izdk’k vxzoky ds i{k esa [kkrk foHkktu gqvkA 11 ;g fd mDr Hkwfe vukosndx.k dz- 1] 2] 3 rFkk 4 ds firk vkse izdk’k vxzoky ds uke ij jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa 30-07-1980 dks ntZ fd;k x;k gSA 12 ;g fd vukosndx.k ds firk Lo- euksgj yky vxzoky ds }kjk diV iwoZd ,oa “kM;a= jpdj rFkk Ny ls vkosnd equs’oj lk; daoj vkfnoklh ls mDr Hkwfe vius uke djus ds i'pkr~ vius iq=ksa ds uke vFkkZr vukosndx.k dz- 1] 2] 3 rFkk 4 ds firk vkse izdk’k vxzoky ds uke ij djk;k x;k gSA 13 ;g fd mDr Hkwfe dk gLrkarj.k vkfnoklh ls xSj vkfnoklh dk gksuk 170 ¼[k½ N-x- Hkw&jktLo lafgrk ds vUrxZr vkrk gSA 14 ;g fd vkosnd mDr Hkwfe dks okil ysuk pkgrk gSA 15 ;g fd vkosnd vius vkosnu i= ds lkFk [kljk ikap’kkyk lu 1972&73 ,oa iathd`r fodz;ukek fnukad 06-03-1973 rFkk iathd`r fodz;ukek fnukad 18-07-1974 U;k;ky; dysDVj jk;x<+ ¼e-iz-½ dk vkns’k fnukad 28-06- 1974 dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi layXu dj jgk gSA vr% Jheku ls fuosnu gS fd vkosnu i= Lohdkj dj mDr Hkwfe vkosnd dks dCtk okil fnykus dk vkns’k iznku djus dh n;k gksA LFkku dkalkcsy vf/koDrk okLrs vkosnd fnukad 23-01-2015 vkosnd 12. It is, thus, alleged, as reflected from a bare perusal of the aforesaid application that since the said aboriginal – Muneshwar Sai was in need of money, therefore, upon knowing the said fact, the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents, namely, Manohar Lal Agrawal, while 10 2022:CGHC:20686 forwarding said Sadhu Sai had purchased his land benami under the registered deed of sale, dated 06.03.1973 though the possession was retained by himself and, thereafter, got it purchased from him under the registered deed of sale, dated 18.07.1974 after obtaining the permission of its alienation from the Collector, Jashpur vide order, dated 28.06.1974. 13. An enquiry based upon the aforesaid allegation was conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959, where the petitioner – Urmila Devi, in her evidence, has specifically stated that said Manohar Lal Agrawal had come in possession over the alleged land only after its purchase from said Sadhu Sai. The relevant admission to this effect reads as under:- ………………. ;g dguk lgh gS fd lk/kq lk; ls euksgj yky vxzoky mDr tehu dz; djus ds ckn dCtk euksgj yky yksx djus yxsA 14. In view of the aforesaid admission, it is, thus, evident that he came in possession over the alleged land only after its purchase from said Sadhu Sai and, had not come over it when his vendor – Sadhu Sai had purchased the same from her husband, as alleged in the said application filed under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 and, as was observed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bagicha, vide its order dated 04.10.2019 (Annexure P-4), affirmed by the Collector, Jashpur vide its order dated 19.02.2021 in an appeal preferred by respondent No.1. The observation of the said revenue authorities, therefore, cannot be held to be sustainable in view of the specific 11 2022:CGHC:20686 admission of said Urmila Devi, the widow of said aboriginal- Muneshwar Sai. 15. Moreover, as revealed from the proceeding held under sub-section (6) of Section 165 of the Code, 1959, as observed herein-above, the prevailing rate of the land in question was found to be Rs.364/- per acre and only after considering the adequacy of the sale consideration, permission to alienate the land in question was accorded by the Collector, Jashpur to said Sadhu Sai vide order, dated 28.06.1974 and only thereafter, the registered deed of sale dated 18.07.1974 was executed in his (Manohar Lal Agrawal) favour for a consideration of Rs.3,500/-, i.e., more than a consideration what was assessed in the said proceeding, which has already attained its finality by efflux of time. 16. In view of such circumstances, it is, thus, evident that the alleged sale was made upon due consideration of the price of the land in question and, it cannot be said that any kind of fraud was committed by said Manohar Lal Agrawal with the said erstwhile owner of the land in question at the time of execution of the registered deed of sale made in favour of said Sadhu Sai, or could it be held to be benami, as alleged in the said application. 17. Be that as it may, the aforesaid Revenue Authorities were not competent enough to hold the alleged transaction as a benami, as the issue to consider the same is beyond its jurisdiction in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Khora (Dead) through legal heirs and others vs. Mohar Sai and Others , reported in (2023) 14 SCC 767 . As in the said case, a suit was instituted by respondent No.1/plaintiff, an aboriginal, seeking 12 2022:CGHC:20686 declaration of title and injunction based upon a deed of sale, dated 02.04.1981, said to have been executed in his favour by an aboriginal. It was contested by the appellants/defendants on the ground that the alleged sale, though purchased in his (plaintiff) name, but was a benami one, as the same was executed for the benefit of his master, who was not a tribal and, the alleged transaction was held to be as such, i.e., a benami transaction, by the Revenue Authorities which has attained its finality. In that factual scenario, a question was, therefore, raised therein, that the claim as made was not only barred by jurisdiction under Section 257 of the Code, 1959, but would also be hit by the principles of res judicata. The defence, so raised, was turned down by the Supreme Court on the ground that the Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to hold the alleged transaction to be a benami one and, the civil court cannot be held to be barred by jurisdiction to entertain the authenticity of the alleged transaction. The relevant observations made therein at paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 read as under:- “ 7. ……………...Admittedly Respondent 1 who filed the suit on the strength of the sale deed executed in his favour was also a tribal person. In such circumstances, the question as to whether Respondent 1 was only the ostensible owner and not the beneficial owner could not have been gone into by the Revenue Authorities. It is true that under Section 165(6-c), the Collector is entitled to go into the question whether the transaction is spurious or benami. But the power conferred by Section 165(6-c) is to be exercised while passing an order under sub-section (6-a), granting or refusing to grant permission or under sub-section (6- b), ratifying or refusing to ratify the transaction. Such a power is not expressly extended to avoidance of transfers under Section 170.” “ 8. ………………...An attempt was made by the appellants 13 2022:CGHC:20686 herein to show that the transaction was hit by the benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988. That was also rejected by the trial court. Since all these questions could not have been gone into by the Revenue Authorities, the findings recorded by them could not have operated as res-judicata.” “ 9. …………...The question whether the purchase by a tribal was a sham and nominal transaction for the benefit of a non- tribal, may not fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Authorities…….” 18. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme court in the above referred matter, the findings recorded by the said Revenue Authorities holding the alleged transaction to be a fraudulent one because it was a benami, thus, cannot be held to be sustainable in the eye of law and the Commissioner, Surguja vide its order impugned has, therefore, not committed any illegality in reversing the same while rejecting the application filed under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 for restoration of the land in question. 19. Insofar as the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Bhaiji vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Thandla And Others (supra), as relied upon by the counsel appearing for the petitioner, is concerned, the same is, however, of no use as the enquiry was conducted in the instant matter under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959. 20. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Nikita</div>