Bi: ^.,X2^^ IN 'EHE HIOH BOVWE ®F SVBtBA'SVSS A'T BIIASPCTR (€23) PETI'HQN IK).So2-4-©p2@Q4 ^ wewaBS • iStagi IiaX S/6 AjifeRan,' Mo1st Lal S/a Ajl-fe Bam? abou't 32 yeacs •' aboafe SS yeses '. VtoVh ssaiSent 9C Village ^inj^'Eebsil at»a ©ist.ffie'fe aaigarh (CB). o^^A^^ ^<e" A'f'" ^^^^y ^O. •^c^^^' flEmiIONBRg' S!S8 @: >-? The Sta-be off Chhatfelsgai'K? 'airaugli tfae Segre-baEy BepairtaBnli ofi Revenue," Man-tralay , B.K.S. Buitding, Raipur (6G). Ihe Bpaa'3 ef Reveaue,1 Ghhafebisgarfa, 'Ehrough ite E'BSsldeiafc]' . BilaspuE- (CO). 'Rie Sel.les'feQir, Rgigarhy 'SziIa .DlvisloBal OfiEioer (Revenue),' &al.garii. Jagmehan S/e.Naiflcl Kha^lya g/o Vill^e Iii.njiB,' Ttehslt aa9 B-telB'ie'fi fiaigazfa'y Uttan S/p Nariki Khadlya, .E/oVillage Iitnjir; 'tehsiil anfl DlgtElff-ti Raigaitt. :_ 7 .^ Nanhu S/es Lou-ba aIhaE'lya Khadlya, Fesi<3enfc of Village Iilnjley Tshsil av& Dis'telGt; Raigarii (SG). iffliSPONBENTg' A^7 WRIf PSTITION UNDER MTIGLE; ;227 QFa'HECBNSTI'KJ'EEON QB- iWiA* 1. PeFtiiaulars o£ tfae Petsitioners : As' -st.a'bed in -fche eau.sa-.•ttl'tle above. * \ ..--^ Partiedlars of ffia Respondents ; As sfeafeed in •bhe aause •Isl'ble sfeew®-. Paffcl-eulaTS of 1she erder agains.-b whieh ;-tshe petition is made .' • . TOie ga'bifelon ia mada agaiiis-b -Bie £®ll@wiiagQE&SS. -' XI-HC-22 ^aaUUsKS»)lS!*i%,!°!<:'ll<'fS< :. r 3n^T l|s|sb __..tQi.S.^S3£h. HI*ICTI a»*ii<»> 2ao<jL.- SD^T^I. R-ii'kSII^T ^w -t-tli^ ^i^—ri € ^ ^.A, 011^1 '^n^R tflso 23.9.2004 4tl'it?<rl'4l*1 tlWctf T? ^^ <R<1^< Ai'aiREffisff^f . Shri Komal Bajpai, counset for ttie petitioners. • Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, PaneL Law^jpr forthe State/respondent No.l, 3 & 4. The petitioners have preferred tfi Constitution of India, Being aggneved the order dated 5.1.2004 passedbyth^ Case No.lg/A-; OlScer (Revenue), Raigarh, whereb^ is writ petition under Article 227 ofthe »ythe order dated t9.8.2004 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision C^se No.l6/A-23/2003-04, whereby the learned Board of Reyenue 3ismissed1|he revisionofths pefitioners affirming District Colleetor, RaigarH, in Appeal -04 affirming ijie order passed by the Sub Divisional fhe S.D.O. (Rsvenue) held tiiat the petitioners are'not Scheduled Tribe, tfierefore, the sale deed transfemng the agricultural land •executed by responde^its No.5 to 7 herem is void in'view of the provisiotis afSecAicai 178-B ofthe jLatld Revenue Cade, 1959 (hereinafter referredfo^as 'theCoye7). ^ ^; I have heard ffie learned eouns^l'fbr the petition^^^o^^ leamed PanelLawyeronbehalfofthe£|tate. 'Brief facts leading to filitlg offlis writ petition are that the petitioners purchased rsvenue land fi-omrespondei^tg No.5 t6 7 ha-eni vide registered sale deed dated 2fi.4;1988. It is admitted Aosition that resoondents No.5 to 7 are '•1' ~ ^"^:'^'^' • ' : Tribe. The petitioners purehased that and admeasurmg 1.53 acresofKhasra No.5Q2, ViUa^: Emiir, claiming tltemselyes IQ be ;Tribe. ;Thereafter, respondents No.5 to 7 filed an applfeaticai before the S.'D.O. (Revenue), Raigarh, complammg that the petitionei|s herem purchased the land in question finm fhem in a deeeitful marine^ ^lam^ng'themgelve& as Tribe, whereasthey are not Tribe. On fhe application ofrefepondents No.5 to 7 herein. ttie S.D.Q. XI-HC-22 si^r^r ft-<i?b 311^1 S»)"HI<:l'k l<1%it1 £: g. ^3^ ^ltt:Krl<'(^SI^!1^l<;ISi: f^ ^^^^,^'.':1>.0,'^1^' '"qra^3Rt(^"^^'^'"~''~"?aS.'"~2BO: 'fNSa' an^i ^snwofet 3, 't>llfirl'i|l-< '•lllli?iT'?f?t2l'<f;"'<ti< %3lNlI (Rcvsnue) initiatedcase ^under Secti^n 1'70-B <af thff Code, and after enquin' and^givmg opporl3tmijtw^bc the'J5arties,thele^^ petition^ :h^m faifed tp^prove?tiietnseh?es to b& of Tribe category, m facf they are of Dhobicaste''wlach fills.i^iider the Othfflr Baetsward Classes casfc.' Ag^eved byth®order ofthe;S.©.(^.,fhe petition^ fil^ CoUectoT, Saigarh, and in tum^ tfa^ q^atvideOTderjda^ 5.1.2004 agapa^v^chtile pe^cinsrsag^ revision befbre the Board &f Keye^ unpugied orderdistmssedtherevisio^ , Perusal a£the impugnedi ord| opportumty, reeordu% the eviidence, ^ the conclustpa that ffie pettttonersifaij but 1heyare.by easte^Dhobi whieU co\ the CoUector atso after perusal oflhq produced fhe certificate <tf Sarpaa^ wfaereas; nd certifiNte of Teiisildar ^ under tUe Iaw,;the KeyenuefQfficers } the competent persons to issuejcaste;| into thefacts.It hasfarfh^beenfflei] also reported vide llis report dated 2" are by caste Dhobif; and flley ai-e o| Gollector, Raigarii also dismissed 'tfae le and the Board of Revenue vide the sr ireveals thst Ihe S.0.0;' after giving ntf based on the revenue record;;reached sd to ftfove that they are Tribe by caste, iiesundertheOBecafegory.Iaappeal, record afSrmed•ttiej order passed by tte S.D.O. PerugaLaftUe mipugned^ord^ furtfaerrey^s thatlfae pet^ li sliowmg^them as Dfaoba by caste, as producedlby thespetitioners. In fert, •t- '•'•-' : . . ^iz., Tehsildat'orfhe Naib Tehsildarare certificate after vera^ing affld eHquiring tioned in the impugned OTder tfaat one of fhe faimly members ofd^ pethiorie^.naffle^ Ram, in record of^lage:Einjir;hasshow& fis-easte as Dhobi.s The Pa.twari Halka .1Z2QQ1 that that flie petitioneis lierein nginal residents ffli;Villa^: Twkapali, Tehsil: Dabhra, ttiey shifl»dfoyplage:Lmjironl}n 20-25 years JMck. XI-HC-22 •^'=:qra!5B,^gt'»iis,'Kn i^ :SI:' F^ aii^T'gir R-ii+ siiiw ^ ^ifin •(' "t d? fc y« ^iiaMTgfflitii ^:3f£^^^c)%^®^ -j-^*"sff^"A"*:n"-"""^"""-<^»-»^ :^nh ^".:''^ 311^1 ^giw^ifw s Thsrsafter,the'S.D.0.aswelLasfl|&jappellste~<2ourt-(Ule'ColIsctoT) and ttie Board of Revenue Eeconled the fili|ding based on the evidenee ayailabte on reeordandafterapprieciationofthe-e - Leapied counsel for the petii finding ofthe three jEourts is coiitra j.urisdiction which B does not h.avi chi*iT(n<4li fli^^if^ 'J^zt' t i?N-OT3Ti^i ndence. ••"••'' .. ! • : ~~.' - ' • ', iohers failed to pouit out that the above rytothe evidence available on record, or theevidenGeontherecordistotallyE^isread. j In ordcr to enterfain a petitio^i under Article 227 ^fthe Constitirtioaof India, tMs Court hasjwisdiction on}ywhenthe mferior CoUrthas^a^^ a pr has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it has or thejurisdiction thoug(i available is being exercised in a manner not pemutted by law and failureofji High Court in writjurisdictionund^r Artiele 227 offhe CQnstttution oflndia cannot cpvert itseif iiito a courfoE: eValyatiofflofeviderice'orcorrecteni af tnere fbrinal pr^techmcat ehara<|rt^ This vi^ suppart &om the Judgment ofAe Hon'ble Apex 'Cou1'^ Gliarider^iar amfl iuthersTeported iil Therefiire, I am offlie opinio^ out a case for mterference by this C^ ^stice or grave mjustice has resulted. The iappeal^and mdulge jin re-appreciation or femdrawinginferen^sorcorTeeterr^ m^matter oF®uryal>CT'Rai V. Ram •TF (ff)SC465. t that the petitionerg have failed to make lurt under Article 227 ofths Gonstitiition of fadia. Hence, the instant writ p^tition is liable to Be disimssed aad it is aecordingly, digtnissed m limine at fh^ adnussion stage ifaielf. Consequently, M.(W.)P.No.2j638/2004 and I.AiNo.6491/2004 stand disposed o£ : Sd/- LC.Bhadoo Judge >•