The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a PIL, which sought cancellation of sale deed executed by widow of a freedom fighter, on the land allotted to her late husband by the state government.
The Division Bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal dismissed a PIL filed by one Devendra Kumar Verma filed with a prayer that an illegal sale deed executed by the Private respondent No. 4 in favour of Private Respondents No. 5 & 6 be declared void and the same be cancelled.
It is contended that the land in question was granted on lease by the State to the husband of the seller and without giving due notice to the villagers, the sale could not be effected, as it was a Government land. The petitioner further submitted that as per Section 165 (6-b) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, the Collector on its own motion can cancel the permission and may order an enquiry and despite the application made to the Collector on 24/06/2022, nothing has been transpired.
On perusal of the documents attached with the petition, the Court noted that the seller is Private respondent No. 4 and it is alleged that the land measuring 2.00 Hectares was granted to Bhagwat Prasad Upadhyay, who was a freedom fighter, by the State Government. After his death, it is alleged that the property without being recorded in the name of Private respondent No. 4, the widow, was sold by her and that too without obtaining any valid permission. Therefore, the provisions of Section 165 (6-b) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 be invoked to cancel the transaction to vest the land in Government.
The petitioner is a third party to the transaction and the statutory period has already been laid down in Section 165(6-b) of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 to challenge any such permission within a period of three years , the Court further noted.
“In a gateway through PIL, the statutory provisions of Section 165 (6-b) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 at the behest of the third party cannot be allowed to over reach to side line the statutory appeal or revision as provided under C.G. Land Revenue Code”, the Court observed .
Therefore, considering the nature of litigation, the High Court was not inclined to entertain the petition at the behest of a private person as he has statutory remedy available under the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, it added.