4F<^ ^A^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WritPetitiori No. 4036 6f2003 PETitIONER Bholaram RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh 85 others •-T4 •w. Post forJudgment & Order on 1 ^ FebruaTy,2009 Sd/- Satish K.Agnihptri Judge iiis^'^ Vli. •naaiiBiSBiia^— HIGH COURT OF GHHATTlSGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 4036 of2003 PETITIONER Bholaram, S/o. Shri Girdhari Lal, aged about 65 years, Caste- Brahman, R/o Village - Deorikhurda, Tahsil - Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Additional Collector, Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. TheSub DivisionalOffieer(Revenue), Tahsil Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.), BUaspur(C,.G.) 4. Smt. Raimat Bai, D/o Shri Shivraj Singh, aged about 60 years, Caste - Panika, R/o Village Deorikhurda, Tahsil _ endraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ' Writ p6tition under Article 226/227 of the Constitutibn oflndia SingleBench : Hon'Ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shri Rajesh Pandey, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1,2 8s 3. Ms Usha Chandrakar, Advocate for the respondent No.4. ; JUDGMENT asORDER (Passed on this /A day of February, 2009) 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 12.5.2003 (Annexure-P/1), passed by the Additional Collector, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur in Appeal CaseNo. 23/A-23/2001-2002 (BholaRamVs. RaimatBai). r yssf. 1. K -.. J-/; 2- '^',»ac'<^1' ,.' The brief facts, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner belongs to general category (Bramhin). The land havingsurvey No. 142/2, 155/2 and 158/2 measuring 0.17 acre, 0.68 acre and 0.36 acre, total 1.21 acre land (hereinafter referred to as land in dispute'), situated at Village - Deorikhurd, Patwari Circle No. 30, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur was recorded in the naine of the petitioner in revenue records. The respondent No.4 filed an application under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short the Code, 1959') before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pendra Road, seeking restoration of possession of the land in dispute in her favour, stating that she had purchased the land in dispute from one Smt. Itwari Bai and the petitioner had transferred that land in the naine of the pedtioner by playing a fraud. It was also stated that the land in dispute was purchased by Smt. Itcyari Bai from one Ramgopal Gond. The application filed by the respondentNo.4 was registered as Case No. 5/A-23/2001-2002. By order dated 15.3.2002 (Annexure P/2) the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Peridra Road directed for reverting the land in dispute in favour of the respondent No.4. Being aggrieved the pedtioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.2, which was disroissed by the impugned order dated 12.5,2003. Thus, the petitioner has filed this petition. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would assail fhe orders passed by the authorities below submittingithat the II Si: [i' fS^ 6. 7. 8. land in dispute was donated by Smt. Itwaria Bai, w/o Raia Manohar Gupfa to the petitioner by a donation deed (Annexure P/3) on 14.1.1988. One Ram Gopal, by caste Raj Gond had filed an application under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 in regard to the same land in dispute before the respondent No.3 which was dismissed oii 29.7.1998 (Annexure P/4). Thus, the application filed by the respondent No.4 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Pendra Road was not tenable in view of the principle of resjudicata. The caste of the respondent No.4 is Panika (Annexure P/5), which comes under the other backward caste (O.B.C.j. In spite 6f donation deed, the petitioner also got executed registered sale deed in the year 1989 by Smt. Itwaria Bai. The petitioner fflade several cornplaints t6 various revenue authorities and also lodged a cripiinal case under Section 420 of the I.P.C. against fhe respondentNo. 4 stating that she had exeeuted the registered sale deed showing her caste as Gond, although she belongs to Panika caste. Learned. - counsel appearing for the respondents would support the order passed by the authorities below. I have heardleamed counsel appearing for the parties and perused the docunients appended thereto. Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 provides for reversion of land of members of aboriginal tribe which was transferred by fraud. This Section stipulates that every person who on the date ofcommencementoftheAmendmenfActof 1980 was in possession of agricultural lahd which belonged to a illember of a tribe which has been declared to be an aborigihal tribe M between the period 2nd October, 1959 to the date of cornmencement of the Amendment Act, 1980 shall notify to the Sub-Divisional Officer in such forin and in such raanner as may be prescribed, all the information as to how he has corae in possession of such land. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pendra Road in his order dated 15th March, 2002 held that the show cause ndtice was issued to the petitioner and a report in Annexure "E" was called from the Patwari. As on 2.10.1959 the land ia dispute was recorded in the narae of Prem Singh S/o Ran Sai, Caste Gond. At present the name of Bholaram (petitioner) is recorded in the revenue records and he is in possessidn. Thus, the land in dispute was fransferred froai a rnember of aboriginal caste to the member of general categoiy. Even after affording sufficient ppportunity to the 'y. petitioner to establish that the transfer 6f the land in dispute was a legal deal, he has failed to do so. The land in dispute was transferred by Itwaria Bai D/o Shivraj Singh, Caste - Gond to Rairaat Bai D/o Shivraj Singh, Case - Gond by a registered sale deed. Thus, the land in dispute was reverted in the name of the respondent No.4. The Additional Collector, Pendra Road in his order dated 12.5.2003 has examined fhe matter in detail and affirmed the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pendra Road. Having examined the facts situation of fhe case, it is evident that in the year 1959 the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Prem Singh S/o Ran Sai, Caste - Gond. Thus under the provisions of Section 170-B of fhe Code, 1995 it was a duly ofthe petitioner to notify to the Sub-Divisional Officer in prescribed tnanner, submitting all the infortliation asto how he had come in possession of the land in dispute which was recorded in the name of a person who was a raember of aboriginal ti-ibe. 10. It is evident from the order dated 12.5.2003, passedbythe Additional Collector that the resporident No.4 is Scheduled Tribe (Gond) as her father was Shivraj Singh, who belong to caste - Gond. The petitioner has failed to establish that the respondent No.4 did not belong to scheduled caste comm.unity. Per conta-a, the certificate to the effect fhat the respoiident No.4 belongs to Panika caste has been obtained by fraud. No attempt was inade to establish the case that the respondent No.4 belongs to Panika caste. The petifioner may take up the mafter to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification of the caste of the respondent No.4 if there is any doubt. 11. In view of the foregoing, I do not find any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The order dated 12.5.2003 (Annexure P/l) isjust and proper and does not warrant interference in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. No order asto COStS. i' " .' : ,'. ;. : ; Sd/-.! -, .- 1 SatishK..'^nihotri Judge 'niakur ^