IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALBUR M.P. l ' ‘V W‘P‘ 3:.[1/97 ~‘ PETITIONER : Smt. Mira Bai, aged about $ ‘ 4 55 ygars, wife of Dhannulal Tiwari , R/o . Kantel i, Teh’sil Mungeii, Dist. Bilaspur (’IgxI Versus RESPONDENT§ ._§ : 1. State of M.P. through p Coll‘ector , Bilaspur. \ WWé 2.’ Fpabhu—alias Bulln, Occupaiem—Cukt 1" J‘V’ WspW 7 -: / : \ a L‘, i Sub-Divisi’;1:§i"’oriicer, Mungeli, Dist. Bilaspur. Additional 6ollector, , N Bilaspur. ' g, ' ‘ ‘ b ‘ Additional - ' Commissioner; /,-/ r ~ V f \Ywpv' Aq’ I . P“ b Kw 14mm ' Lama are. dxww‘m /;\//o WMdwgkkw‘; QkgL ”\Wgatmaya (lawM 4M<L¢ pmw‘yx Particulars of the Petitioner : a TM:PM\M uh? a I ’ As given in the cause title above. \ ML \ I 1mm. Particulars of the Resppndentsx : As given in the cause title above. e Particulars or the order against which this? I I petition is made ' 4 v" (1) Péc‘i-ti9n is against"‘brder dated’zol/I.11.‘97f Pamwk lawman No. mWwz/ww, ‘Izg/Aé-y Pamwk ca“ W&!3¥/A~23/zt~m _ I We I IN THE HIGH COURTpF JUDICATWE ATJABALEUR (M.P._) ‘ WCP‘3% w ,9? PETITIONER : Smt. Mira Bai aged abou , t 55 years, wife of Dhannulal Tiwari, R/o. Kanteli, Teh'sil Mungeli, Dist. Bilaspur (ILBA h, Versus RESPONDENT§ ‘S : 1. State of M.P. through Colector, Bilaspur. vR/c Villaga Katmai 'k. aen 93.3w. silasput f Q;\)0 .5 5. Addltlonal Commissioner 5,“ W” A ‘ . ‘ ‘ Bil aspur' . \ /\ ’§, b Kwwx Kumla‘u (rang g1“! ivéz‘ipaMK/kwSkw gmgl; ‘V M \ PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTIQE Particulars of the Petitioner : As given in the cause title above. Particulars of the esgondents : R As given in the cause title above. Particulars of the Order against which this“ petition 1's made T: 2 1 7 i uw i (i) Pgition is against order dated 0 1 97 °I7& Pm“! lzy/A m 2mm 23/“ {7 cam No mm zz/qlaw, 124/04 f/J l ah m A ,/ X ‘x‘ ' / / V/ M § HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGA§H AT éILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition No.5384 of 1997 Smt. Mira Bai VerSUS State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) and others ORDER Post for 17-3—201 0 i/d.’ Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra‘ Writ Petition No.5384 of 1997 \L \‘ Shri Ashish Shrivastava, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the State/respondents No 1 3 4 and 5 Shri Bruesh Singh counsel for respondents No 2(a) and (b) No one appears for respondent No 6 Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India ORDER (Passed on ’74“ March, 2010) In this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashment of the (i) order dated 30—10-1996 passed by the Sub DIVISIonaI Officer Mungeh (Annexures P 15 P 15A and P 15B) (II) appellate order passed by the Additional Collector on 21-2—1997 (Annexures. P-16, P-16A and P-16B) and (iii) order passed in revision by the Additional Commissioner on 20-11-1997 (Annexures P-14, P—14A and P-14B). By these impugned orders, the Sub- Divisional Officer, the appellate authority of the Additional Collector and the revisional authority of the Additional Commissioner have issued orders for reversion of land belonging to the tribal holder Prabhu Gond which was purchased by the present petitioner Smt Mira Bai by registered sale-deed dated 12-12-1979 (Annexure P-3). Petitioner Smt. Mira Bai versus Respondents State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) and others Present: .- r v. 2. The case of the petitioner Smt. Mira Bai, in short, is that the subject land admeasuring 11.56 acres situated at Village Hardidih, Tahsil Mungeli, District Biiaspur beionged to the tribai Prabhu Gond. The said tribal holder was in need of money and offered to sell the subject land to the petitioner and applied for permission before the competent authority. r7 Permission was ordered on 24-11-1979 (Annexure P-1) and in compliance thereof permission was communicated to the tribunal holder on 10-12-1979 (Annexure P-2). The sale-deed (Annexure P-3) was thereafter registered on 12-12- 1979 after payment of valuable consideration of Rs.30,000l—. it is further stated that after coming into force of the provisions contained in Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (henceforth ‘the Code, 1959’)», the petitioner duly intimated the fact as to how he came into possession of the subject land to the Sub— Divisional Officer on 4-12—1981 vide Annexure P-4. in this information, the petitioner informed that the transaction has been effected after seeking permission from the competent authority, however, in spite of the intimation being submitted, the petitioner was served with a notice (Annexure P-5) and proceedings under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 were initiated. Statement of the tribal holder Prabhu was recorded in the order-sheet (Annexure P—6) on 19-1—1985. In the said statement, Prabhu stated that he had, in fact, sold the land for Rs.35,000/— yet he has received only Rs.30,000/— and the balance Rs.5,000/- has not been paid. The statement mentioned in the order- " sheet (Annexure P-6) has been filed separately as Annexure P—7. In this statement, Prabhu admitted the fact of having executed the sale- mg, deed, however, he stated that except for the fact that he is to receive the remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- he has no objection to the transaction. The Sub-Divisional Officer, thereafter, again recorded statement of the petitioner’s son Yashwant Kumar Singh on 26-2-1985 . (Annexure P—9) and that of the tribal holder Prabhu (Annexure P-10). In this statement (Annexure P-10), Prabhu admitted that he has received the balance amount of consideration from the petitioner today, i.e., 26-2-1985 and that he has no objection to the transaction and the matter be closed. The matter was, thus, closed on 26—2—1985 (Annexure P—1 1): 3.’ When the matter, thus, stood closed, the petitioner again received notices dated 9-10-1996 and 10—10-1996 (Annexures P-12 and P-12A) under Section 170—B ofthe Code, 1959 and by very cryptic and non—speaking order passed on 30-10-1996 (Annexures P-15, P-15A and P—15B), the Sub-Divisional Officer directed reversion of the land to the tribal holder only on the ground that the petitioner has failed to submit information before the competent authority within a period of two years from the date of commencement of the provisions contained in Section 170—B of the Code, 1959, therefore, the land is reverted to the tribal holder. Additional Collector vide order'dated 21—2—1997 (Annexures P-16, P-16A andi P-16B) and thereafter her revision was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 20-11-1997 (Annexures P-14, P-14A and P—14B). The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the i 4. V i matter was enquired and on the basis of statement made by the tribal Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once the i $4... holder, the proceedings were closed, the same could not have been reopened and the second set of proceedings are barred‘under the principle of res judicata. He submits that the transaction was made after obtaining permission from the Collector and the petitioner has duly informed the authority about the nature of possession within a period of two years and as such all the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents No.1, 3, 4 and 5 and learned counsel appearing for. respondents No.2(a) and (b) have supported the impugned orders. 6. A Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Atmaram Rohulla and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1995 MPLJ 633 has held that the presumption contemplated under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 is a rebuttable presumption and that the said presumption does not amount to conclusive proof. lt has also been held therein that when the purchaser has informed the authority that he has purchased the land after seeking permission from the Collector, it was the duty of the Sub-Divisional Officer to make enquiry and the final order could not have been passed only on the basis of presumption under Section 170-B(1) ofthe Code, 1959. 7. In Ravi Narayan vs. State of M.P. and others, Writ Petition No.4475/1997, decided on 4-2-1999, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that once enquiry under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 was conducted and the matter was closed, the same cannot be ‘2, reopened after long lapse of time. ln that case, the reopening was i l " i l l ~51. made after 9 years. ln the present case, the matter was earlier closed on 26—2—1985 vide Annexure P-11 and the fresh notices were issued on 9-10-1996 and 10-10-1996 vide Annexures P-12 and P-12A. Thus, in the present case, the second proceedings were drawn after more than 11 years. The case in hand is, thus, squarely covered by the judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Ravi Narayan vs. State of M.P. and others (supra). 8. There is yet another feature in the present case inasmuch as in Ravi Narayan vs. State of M.P. and others (supra), permission for review of the earlier order was granted by the higher authorities, however, in the instant case, no such permission as required under Section 51 of the Code, 1959 was either sought for or granted by the Collector or any other higher revenue authority. ThUS, the'reopening of the matter, being contrary to the provisions of Section 51 of the Code, 1959 is wholly without jurisdiction apart from being hit by the principle of res judicata as held by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Ravi Narayan vs. State of M.P. and others (supra). 9. Apart from the above mentioned legal grounds, if the matter is examined on merits then also it appears that the said transaction is not hit by the legal mischief of the provision contained in Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 because the tribal holder Prabhu, in the first set of proceedings had clearly stated that in fact he sold the land for Rs.35,000/— but had received only Rs;30,000/- and that except for the 'said amount of Rs.5,000/~, he has no objection to the transaction, t meaning thereby that no fraud has been committed upon the said tribal t holder. lt is to be seen that the registered instrument clearly recites ”é, that the amount of consideration was Rs.30,000/—, however, since the tribai holder Prabhu made this statement about non-payment of Rs.5,000/-, the said amount was also paid to him on 26-2-1985, which finds mention in his statement (Annexure P-10) recorded on,26-2‘— 1985, and thereafter the matter was closed on 26-2-1985. Thus, the present is not a case where the transaction suffers from any infirmity or was not a result of commission of any fraud on the tribal holder Pbhu. ra 10. The Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the appeiiate and the revisionai authorities in the present/second set of proceedings have passed the order of reversion of Iand oniy on the basis of presumption arising on account of non-submission of a required information within a period of two years as required under Section 170-B(1) ‘of the Code, 1959. it is the case of the petitioner that she had, in fact, submitted the information on 4-12-1981 (Annexure P-4). This document is a certified copy issued by the District Collector’s Office, Bilaspur and is not a suspicious document. In View of this document, by which intimation was sent to the Sub—Divisional Officer, Mungeli, even the deeming fiction/presumption cannot arise against’the petitioner so as to warrant passing of order regarding reversion of Iand in favour of the tribal holder Prabhu. The competent authority as well as the appellate and the revisional authorities have not appreciated this document and the earlier set of proceedings, which has, thus, resulted in serious error of jurisdiction committed by the authorities in the second set of proceedings. ~¥¢ 11. In View of the law laid down by High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Atmaram Rohulla and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) and Ravi Narayan vs. State of M.P. and others (supra), the impugned orders cannot be sustained. The impugned orders, i,e., (i) . order dated 30—10-1996 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mungeli (Annexures P-15, P-15A and P-15B), (ii) appellate order passed by the Additionai Collector on 21-2—1997 (Annexures P-16, P-16A and P-16B) and (iii) order passed in revision by the Additional Commissioner on 20-11-1997 (Annexures P—14, P—14A and P-14B) deserve to be and are accordingly set aside. The instant writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ll Gopal