Revenue orders passed without establishing the representative’s authority to act for the landowner cannot be sustained.

The petitioner claimed rights over 0.30 hectare out of Khasra No. 83, measuring 1.90 hectares, situated at Village Haathkachora, Jagdalpur.

Through her husband, Sukhdhar Baghel, acting as her alleged Power of Attorney Holder, she initiated proceedings under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, seeking removal of the respondent’s alleged illegal possession.

The Tahsildar allowed the application on 7 May 2008. On appeal, the Sub-Divisional Officer set aside that order on 31 July 2009, holding that Sukhdhar Baghel had not established his authority to represent the petitioner.

The Commissioner dismissed the petitioner’s second appeal on 28 November 2017.

The petitioner contended that a registered Power of Attorney dated 6 January 2004 had been produced and verified before the Tahsildar, and that the substantive dispute had not been examined on merits.

She also argued that a judgment in Civil Suit No. 5-A/2006 could not bind her because she was not a party to that suit.

The State opposed interference under Article 227, contending that the authority of the Power of Attorney Holder had not been established before the authorities below.

Whether the revenue authorities were justified in rejecting the petitioner’s claim on the ground that Sukhdhar Baghel had not established his authority to act as her Power of Attorney Holder, without adjudicating the substantive dispute on merits?

Whether the petitioner’s entitlement to restoration of possession under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, the respondent’s alleged illegal possession, and the effect of the civil court judgment required fresh determination by the competent revenue authority?

Whether the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer, and Commissioner could be sustained when the proceedings had not been instituted by the recorded landowner or by a duly authorised representative?

The Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, while recognising that such jurisdiction may be invoked where a subordinate court or quasi-judicial authority fails to exercise jurisdiction properly or decides a matter on an erroneous technical basis.

The substantive claim arose under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, concerning restoration of possession and removal of an allegedly illegal occupant.

The Court applied the principle that the authority of a Power of Attorney Holder is a factual matter requiring consideration on the basis of the relevant instrument and record, and that the substantive rights of the parties should not be conclusively rejected without proper adjudication.

No binding judicial precedent was relied upon or discussed.

The Court found that the appellate authorities had not adjudicated the petitioner’s substantive claim regarding illegal possession and restoration of possession.

The Sub-Divisional Officer had allowed the appeal solely because Sukhdhar Baghel’s authority was allegedly unproved, while the petitioner relied on a registered Power of Attorney dated 6 January 2004, said to have been produced before and compared by the Tahsildar.

The Court held that the validity and effect of that Power of Attorney were factual questions which had to be considered together with the petitioner’s claim under Section 250.

It further held that the issues concerning the respondent’s possession, the petitioner’s entitlement, and the applicability of the judgment in Civil Suit No. 5-A/2006 required examination by the competent revenue authority, particularly since the petitioner asserted that she was not a party to that civil suit.

However, because the proceedings had been initiated by a person whose authority to represent the recorded landowner had not been established, the initial Tahsildar order and the consequential appellate orders could not be sustained.

The matter was remitted to the Tahsildar, Jagdalpur, and the petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh, duly constituted application.

The Tahsildar was directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving all concerned parties an opportunity of hearing.

The Court expressly left open all questions concerning maintainability, the petitioner’s entitlement, possession, and the applicability of Section 250, without expressing any opinion on the merits.