—-F- ^'-. \ "V IN THE HIGH COURT OP JUDICAT^RE AT _ JABALPUR Petitioner r.p.No^ /1998 Basantlal s/o Dfoaneshwr Sanwara Caste Sa^va^a^ residexat of Village Taraimalt, Tabsil Gharghoda^ Dist^ Raigarh^ M.P^ >\ ^ ^ l^t ^ 3^7^££2 •vs< Respondenfcs y^l» State of M.P. through the Secretary^ Hevenue Departmenfe^ Vallabh Bhawaa^ Bliopal^ J 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Gharghoda^ ©ist»Raigarh^ r ~ .. ..- s/o ^ 3. Pilaram aadfcas/ThibuJc /^' by caste Urav S/o ^ 4<» Panatram ^sJUfcsx/DtaIcalxi aged 40 years respondent n©^3& 4 resident both residents of ©ram Taraimal^ Tahsil Gharghoda^ Disfc» Raigarh» M»P^ ^ 5 • DjLnbandhu^L/o not fcnown caste Mali^ resident of Village Taraimal. Tfehsil Gharghoda,, Mst^ Raigari-i»M»Pe IT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE 226 & 227 OP IHE CONSTITUTION OF IHDIA -: s 1 :/] ^ m T^-iT^ OTr^i^^^ 1- ^u -3"^'.^qr^f, ^fteTT^,/^^ray i^^ ^o.Sr^^5 /^S .31'l^T^i^(T^t3^?) ^N^N ^ fe^ it^r< ^'stf^H ^Ti^if SB: HON. SHRI JUSTldB N.K. AGARWAL 4-8-2009 Shri Ashish Suran^, Advocate, for ftie petiticmer. Shri Satish Guptaj Govt. Advocate, for the respondents No. 1 and 2. None appears for o With the consent initiated under Section 1 [Aier respondents. |of the parties, the matter is heard finally. The tnstant petitio^i is directed against the proceedings 'O-B ofC.G. Land Revenue Code and reglstering a case und^- the instmction of Sub Divisional Officer, Gharghoda on the ground fhat the petitioner is by caste Tribal and has piirphased the land in dispute from the father of respondent No| 3 and 4 vide registered sale deed dated 26-4-1980 and is|in peaceful possession of the same and the provisions ofSecjbion 170-B oftheC.G. Land Revenue Code are not appUcab^e in case of a transaction of sale between tribal and tril[»al and therefore, ftie proceeding initiated by the Sub DMs^onal Officer is withoutjurisdiction. Shri Surana, leamefl counsel for the petitioner, submits that on the face of fhe r^cord, as fhe proceedings imtiated by the Sub DMsional Office^ are megal and wifhout jurisdiction ^RT^-7r ^^ K^TH<^ U^Rf^n^—FS/95—11 /2008—1,00,000. ^€^^ 1 ^ -^^ ^ ^s< ..•,"' ^'/' ^.,," XI-HG—78 ^n^r ^T f^iw 'cT^T ^TT^T ^^ic?) *II*ICTI ((><tl<b -3"5ET ^|^|<r|<4/^ti)wi<o/[®l<rll^^< ^:.^.:E^.<?...I.S. ^200 3TI^?r TT3RT (^t3^ST) ^^nw^rftn STT^T Satlsh and, therefore, this preferred by tbe petitioner.l Per contra, Shri submits tiiati&s per fhe aj the petitioner is by caste A( More over, in the applicati|on fraud put forth by fhe by fhe Sub Divisional the respondents and the the evidence whether fhe| cannot be decided by way I have heard carefully gone through The Supreme Courtj Divisional OHicer, Thand| Coi^rt should entertain the petition resijondents. Offifcer Dt.atter SCC 692, held that the pr<|>visi( (1) and (2-A) ofthe Land tmnsfer of land by membeits The respondents havje fact which can only be Divisional Offlcer after red pass order. Therefore, at chl^ld^l'1 TTO^f ^f fe^ <P»l^i< i73ffOT3T?^r Gupta, leamed Govt. Advocate, )plication JBled by the respondents, fcrfi'which is not recognized as tribe; tf|on, there are specific aflegations of i. No order has been passed on fhe application preferred by is yet to be decided based on petitioner is tribe or not, which |>ffhispetition. counsel for fhe parties and of fhe case. in the case of Bhadji -v- Sub- ^a aiid others reported tn (2003) 1 r<|>visions contained ia Section 170-B I^evenue Code are also applicable to ofaborigmal tribes inter se. raised fhe disputed questions of lecided by the authority i.e. Sub (ording evidence and then he may |his stage, fhe petition as filed has learded fhe Irecord + .^^^-%^^ "f\ " '^^;. /'^^ ^^,.,.-:..-.. 1 II v:^'^% II 1 '^ ^ \ %.-y "^^^C-78 ^TT^T ^?T f<^Jch '<TSH ^TT^T'^TTeF ?/ IINCTI »»*ll<t» 7S[ ^ww^, ^tii^Ko, [sKrti-My UO .^^o.S2.4^y3g ^ 200 3TI^?TTT^R> (^i^y?) ir^nw ^yf^r ^?T no merit. The petitioner is ultimate order, wfaich may Thepetition fails and cM<<f<n<fll 'HR^ff ^f f^^l ^^K G^3tRW3H^T always at liberty to chaHenge the be passed by the authority. isdismissed. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge