WRIT PETITION None on 16 May 1994

1) TeerathrajSingh,S/o Chandrabhan Singh Gond,R/ovillage. Barekelkhur.d,TahsilMahasamund,Distt<Mahasamund,.village. Barekelkhur.d,TahsilMahasamund,Distt<Mahasamund,.2)Usatram,sonof Bodhram,R/ovillage Barekelkhurd,Tahsil& Distt,Mahasamund..& Distt,Mahasamund..3)Gurubaru,S/o Sahdev,R/o Barekelkliurd,Tahsil& Distt.Mahasamund•Mahasamund•4)S»D,Q»,Mahasamund,5)Collector,Raipur,6)Add•Commissioner,Raipur Division,Raipur,7)BoardOf Revenue,Gwalior,5)Collector,Raipur,6)Add•Commissioner,Raipur Division,Raipur,7)BoardOf Revenue,Gwalior, ^)

HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURSJB:Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra. J.

WritPetitionNo. 5046/98

PETITIONER :NanhuramVersusVersusRESPONDENTS :Teerathraj Singh and others Nonefortheparties.

ORAL ORDER(31.08.2012)

The present writ petition has been preferred by the purchaser of land bearingkhasra No. 28/2 and 83/2 area 2 acres by registered sale deed dated 29/09/1980from Teerathraj SJngh. On an application moved by the said Teerathraj Singh beforethe S.D.0. (Revenue), Mahasamund under the provisions contained jn Sectjon170-B of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code proceedings were initiated by the saidrevenue officer and after issuing notice, obtaining reply and holding enquiry in thematter the land was reverted to the original owner Teerathraj Singh by order dated15/09/1992. In the said order it was found by the S.D.O. that spot inspection wascarried out by village Kofriwar and village Patel who submitted a report that on theland recorded in the name of Nanhuram one Usatram Agariya is Jn cuitivatingpossession and that no person in the name of Nanhuram is residing jn the village.Teerathraj Singh made statement that he has never sotd the land to Nanhuram andinfact he had mortgaged the land in favour of Usatram Agariya. According to him,he had already repaid loan of Rs.3000/- to Usatram Agariya'fbr which a receipt hasbeen has been issued to him. Usatram was examined by the S.D.O., however,Nanhuram in whose favour the sale deed was executed neither filed any reply normade any statement before the S.D.O. (Revenue).(2)On the basis of material available on record, the S.D.O. (Revenue) recordeda categorical finding that land was purchased by Usatram as benami transaction inKhe name of Nanhuram to avoid the rigor of Section 165 (6) of Chhattisgarh Land -——^"•--•—^pa^^^ '^/y^':lv^m^:

";^

Revenue Code and the tribaj holder of land has been defrauded, therefore,transaction is deciared to be null and void.

(3) The above order of S.D.O. (Revenue), Mahasamund was afRrmed in appealby Collector, Raipur by its order dated 16/05/1994 (Annexure P-7) and thereafter byAdditional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur in revision proceedings on24/01/1996 (Annexure P-8). Second revision was preferred before the Board ofRevenuewNch was dismissed as not maintainable vide Annexure A-9.

(4) No one appears before this court to argue this writ petition, however, sincethis writ petition was dismissed in default on 8August, 2007 and thereafter it wasrestored, this court does not deem it proper to dismiss the writ petition for want ofprosecution and has proceeded to decide the matter on merits on the basis ofmaterial placed on record.

Conclusion

(5) From what has been concluded by the S.D.O. (Revenue), Mahasamund in itsorder dated 15/09//1992 (Annexure A-6) it is apparent that the person in whosename land was purchased is neither resident of the village nor has ever cultivatedthe land and infact in response to the notice jssued by the S.D.0. (Revenue) thesaid Nanhuram did not appear before the S.D.0. to record his statement. It is alsoto be seen that when the village Kotwar and village Patel made spot inspection thevillagers informed them thatthe land is cultivated by Usatram and not by Nanhuram.The evidence available on record cleariy suggests that transaction was benami andwas made at the instance of Usatram who had advanced toan of Rs.3000/- toTeerathraj Singh and the transaction was by way of collateral surety for the loantransaction.

(6) In the matter of B.K. Muni Raju vs. State of Karnataka (2008) 4 SCC 451, ithas been held in paragraph 22 as under:

"It is settled law that a writ of certiorari can only be issued in exercise ofextraordinary jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction. Thewrit jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferiorcourts or tribunals or authorities in excess of their jurisdjction or as a result oftheir refusal to exercise jurisdictjon vested in them or they act illegally or' improperly jn the exercise of thejr jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of

• ',|ll'K'i^(#i^'teife»«*^'*«

't

^^^/^"%€'t^^ 1y 1'K^~ ^

^

justice.In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunat orauthority, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding,the Tribunal/authority has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, orhas refused to admit an admissible evidence, or if the finding is notsupported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amountsto an error of law. It is needless to mention that a pure error offact, however,grave cannot be corrected by a writ."

(7) ln view of the above principles laid down by the Supreme Court concerningscope of writ jurisdiction particularly for issuance of writ of certjorari, this court findsthat the revenue authorities i.e. S.D.O. (Revenue), Mahasamund, Collector, Raipurand Additional Commissioner, Raipur have concurrently found that the subjecttransaction is void on account of being a benami transaction for the benefit ofUsatram, therefore this court finds itself unable to take a different view of the matterto set aside concurrentfinding recorded by the subordinate revenue authorities.

(8) There is no substance in this petition filed under Article 226/227 ofConstitution of India, which fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-Prashant Kumar MishraJudge