(^ MK3HC?OUra'QEeMUlCTT®OARHATBtU PUR WRn'PETmON(ClN0.3208of2a07 Petitioner Ramsevak S/o Mangal, R/o. Vtllage Tendumuda, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Biiaspur Through Geneial Paww of Attomey Shri Oonelal S/o Ramsevak R/o Tendumuda, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. Ghain Singh, S/o Daya Smgh, Caste-Gond, R/o Vills^e Rajhapara (Koitoa), Tahsil ~ Penctra Road, Distt. - Bitaspur (C.G.) 2. State of ChhatBsgarti, Through : Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Revenue Board of ChhatUsgarh, Bllaspur (C.@.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Single Bench :- Hon'bte Shri JusUce Satish K. Agnihotri Present:- Shri D.R. Sharma, Senior Advocate wMn Ms. AnNa Stngh, Advocate for the PetiUoner. ORDBR (Passed on ttiis 11" day of June, 2007) The only questton raised in Vms peUUon is ssto whettiw a fribal who was declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub-secUon (6) of Section 165 of the Chhattisgarh Land Rsvenue Code, 19% (hereinafter referred to as the Code, 1959') can challenge the sate deed of the disputed land in favour of the petfUoner after a period of two years. M\ the facts are admitted. Leamed counsel appearing fbr the p^lUoner contends ttiat the application dated 28.11.2001 made by the respondent No. 1 witti regard to the sats deed dated 8.7.1972 in tavour ot tt peBUoner was not maintainable uncter Uie provlsiorK of Seeton 170-B of the Code, 1959. The dismissat of the revision by the Board of Revenue, , 91 ChhatUsgarh, Bilaspur was bacfr % ttie Board of ftevenue has not considered the jurisdiction of the Sub-Dh^ionat Officer (Revenue), Pendra Road about maintainabitUy of the appncati<m aftor a period of two years under the provisions of Sectien 170-B of the Code, 1959. Sub-sectton (1) of Sectlon 170-B cf the Code, 1959 contemptates that a pereon who Is in possession of the agricultural land which belonged to a member of a tribe, which has been dadared to be an aboriginal tribe, shall within two years of such commencament, ncrtify all the infbrmaUon ssito how he has come In possession of such land to the Sub-DMsionat Officer tn such form aid in such manner as may be prescribed. Su|>-secUon (2) <rf Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 contemplates that tf such person fails to notHy the intormation as required by sub-sectton (1) witttin the spectfled period, it shall be presumed that sudi pereon has been in possesston of Uie agricultural tand wtthout any lawftd auttiwity and such land shall on the expiration of the period woald revert to the person to whom it origlnally belonged and If that pereen be dead, to his legal heirs. The petitioner is an alleged purchaser from ttie raspondwt No. 1, thus, the Itability is on <he peUUoner to notity alt ttr IntwmaUon wlthin a period of two years, failing whicti the same would be dectared as unlawftil possession. The peUUoner, it appears, has not notified his possesston and <he Sub-Divisional Offtoer took the action on the basis of the apptication made by the respondent No. 1 who happens to be a triba declared to be an aboriginal tribe. It is beneficial to quote the provisions of SecUon 1 70-B <tf tte Code, 1959 which reads as under:- ^ Bl "[170-B. Reveretoff of land of members of aboriginal tribe which was (ransferred 6y fratKt.-(1) Ewry peison wrtio on the date of commencement of the ChhaUagarh Land Revenue Code (AmendmenQ Act 1980 (hereinafter refsrred to as the Amendment Act of 1980) is in possession of agrieultural lahd which belonged to a member of a tribe whlch has been dectared to bs an aboriginal tribe under sub-se<^on (6) of secUon 1K between the period commending on the 2nd October, 1989 and ending on ttw date of th8 comrnencemant of Amendment Act, 1980 shall, within VMO years] of such commencement, nottfy to the Sub-Divisional OBicer in sudi ferm and in such manner as may be prescribed, all the Informafion as to how he has come in possession ofsuch land. (2) if any persori fails to notity the InftwmaSon as required by sub-secUon (1) wlthin the period specifled therein It ^iall be presumed that such pereon has been in possesston of the agricultural land vrtthout any lawful airthorlty and ttie agricultural land shall, on ttie expiratlon of tte period afwesakl revert to ttie person to whom it originally belonged and tf that person be dead, to his legal heirs. P-A) ff a Gram Sabha in the Sctoduled area prfwred to in clause (1) of Arttcle 244 of the CorraUtuUon Bnds ftat any pereon, dher than a member of an aboriginal tribe, is In possession of any land of a Bhumlswaml belongmg to an aboriginal tribe, wlthout any lawful auttiortty, tt shall rretore Uie possession of such land to that persons to whom it oiteinatly belonged and if that person te dead to his tegat heirs: Provided that if the Gmm Sabha fatte to restwe the possassion of such land, tt shall refer the matter to the Sub- DMsronal Officer, who shall restore the poss^slon of such tand within three months from the date of recefpt of ttw refereni».} (3) On receipt of the informatlon under sub-secUon (1), the Sub-Divisionat Officer diall nake such enqulry as may be deemed necessary about all siich transacttons of fransfer and If he finds that the member <rf aboriginat tribe has twen dedaiKtod of his legitlmate right he shall declare the transaction nutl and votd and pass an order revesting the agricultural land in the transferer and, if he is dead, In his legal helre.] — 1 ^ jai 8. B/ [(3) On receipt of the information under sub-secUon (1) the Sub-Dhrisional Offteer shall inake such enquiry as msiy necessary about all such transactfons of Bransfer and ff hs finds that the member of aboriginal ttlbe has been ddraudad of his legitimate right he shalt declare the fransaction null and voW and- (a) Where no building or struchire has been ere^ed on the agricultural land prior to such ftocte pass an order revestlng the agrtcultural land in the transfsrer and If he be ctead, In his legal heirs, (b) Where any buiktlng or structure has bean wected on th8 agricultural land prior to such findii^i, he shatl fb< the price of such land in aeGontance wtth Uie princlptes laid dovm for fiiation of prtce of land !n the Land Acquisifien Act, 1894 (No. 1 of 1 4) and ordw the pereon referred to In sub-section (1) to pay to ttie transrferer the difference, if any, between the prkse so fnad and the price actually paid to the transfeier: Provlded that where the buildii'^1 or structure has been erected after the 1st day of January, 1984 the ta'ovtetons ef clause (b) above shall not apply: Provided further that flxatton of priee under dausa (b) shall be with reference to <he price on the data of reglstratton of ttie case before the Sub-Dhrisonal Officer.}" 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the petlttoner, perused the pleadtngs and documents af^ended thersto. 1 havs not found any Infirmity, HtegalMy or jurisdictlonal error in the wder. Cwitentton cf leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner ttiat Uie applicaUon was not malntainabte before the Sub-DMstoial Officw is rejected in vlew of unambiguous and clear provisfons of taw (supra). The impugned order is unexcepUonable and does not warrant any interference. Thus, Vne writ petttion is dismissad summarily. 1 Satisii K. Agnihotri •"7