^ ^v IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT J BILASPUR _,. -rr V/ .0^ Writ Petition N0. ^2^^ /2003 PETITIONER ..-^- y^ ^ •^: RESPONDENTS Lagesar, aged about 70 years S/o. Late Saro Das, R/o Village Barihapali,Tah. Saraipali Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS :1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretory RevenueDepartment, D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) I.Q^ Daulal, S/o. Bhago Beldar R/o. Village Barihapali, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Ishra, S/o. Bhakalu, R/o. Village Barihapali, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Revenue Board of Chhattisgarh Through Presiding Officer Circuit Court, Raipur (C.G.) Sub- Divisional Officer Mahasamund Now Saraipali Distt Maha§a±iund(C.G.) 4. 5. WRIT PETITIONU/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA -"1¥' .r,:.y ^ .s? J';' 'f^ ^ ^ ^ /^ x ^ K^- ^'f '^ n.' Po.wm-f\wid <D'^,-s7o t-alpe KKacj^h.ii.w^ £]^ a^-cj <3L|o6c4~" 3^'y€j?-i-u; I^A) Sh-ih Kv&h P>'»y4 O^ w/o LA.|~£ Kh^<^^-^ ^ <T4 ^(^~^' yTU Bo-ii-, ^Zo V'il?- ^^Tihf<palt, T^^^?? BA^HQ 'Ci.'stt' Kqkci5^mari4 <'(<<') ^ ^ c ^y -^ ^•^ mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinele Bench: Hon^ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition No. 1726/2003 Parmanand Das and another Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others ORDER Postfor ^ 01-2011 Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^b' mCH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra WritPetition N0.1726^003 PETiTIONERS RESPONDENTS : Parmanand Das and another Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Appearance: Shri L.C. Dash, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No. land5. Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel for respondent No.2. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTnrUTION OF JNDIA ORDER (O .01.2011) The instant petition has been directed agaimt the order passed by the Board ofRevenue on 13/05/2003 (Annexure P-1) allowing the revision preferred by respondent No.2 and directmg reversion of land in his favour, in exercise of powers under section 170-B of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. (2) Facts ofthe case, in short, are that the petitioners are in possession oftiie land belonging to the father ofrespondent No.2, Daulal, hea-emafter referred to as tribal holder, and fhe said tribal holder moved an application before fhe Sub Divisional QfiRcer (Revenue) for reversion of land. By order dated 11/04/1985 the Sub Divisional Officer dismissed the tribal holder9s application, however appeal preferred by respondent, No.2 was allowed by the Additional Collector, Raipur vide its order dated 11/12/1987 (Amiexure R/2-1) and the matter was remitted back to the Sub Divisional Officer for fresh enquiry. The Sub Divisional OfiBcer, Revenue ,>.^--^<^ , '^M, "'%^' 1 j^.^». 1 ^ '^ f'^^^ -z- ^) thereafter passed the order on 29/12/1988 directing reversion ofland to the tribal holder. In this order it was mentioned fhat the area admeasuring 0.21 decimal bearing Khasra No. 160/1 was mortgaged by Daulal in favour of Lochan S/o Pustom Kolta and similarly an area admeasuriing 0,78 decimal bearing Khasra No. 181/1 was mortgaged in favour of Sampat S/o Ramcharan. Sampat in tum sold fhe land to one Isra S/o Paklu tribal. On an enquiry the Sub Divisional Officer found that petitioner Khagesar is in possession ofland and it is he who has purchased the land in the name of Isra. The Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue found that it is not clear as to how Khagesar came in possession ofthe land wifhout there being any instmment ofalienation in his favour. (3) The above order passed by the Sub Divisional QflBcer cn 29/12/1988 was again challenged before the Additional Collector who passed the order on 20/06/1989 (Annexure P-5), again remanding the matter for firesh enquiry. This remand order was p^ssed on the ground that in the Misal Bandobast of the year 1929-30 name of Daulal or his predecessor in interest has been recorded as belonging to Beldar Community and thus fhere is dispute about his status of a tribal and tiiis issue needs to be enquired. The Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue again passed fhe order on 18/09/1991 directing reversion of land mter-alia holding that from the statement ofDaulal it wcnild appear Ifaat his caste has been mentioned in tfie Misal Bandobast as Beldar on the basis of his vocation/nature of busmess carried by his family and infact his family belongs to Gond Tribal Community. It was also mentioned m the order that certificate of Gram Panchayat and Patwari has been submitted by the said Daulal. This order of Sub Divisional OfiBcer, Revenue passed on :^^ .^ '^. '^}::-': A: oc 18/09/1991 (Annexure R/2-3) was again challenged before Additional Collector who passed the order on 17/09/1996 (Amiexure P-3) again remanding tfae matter to fhe Sub Divisional Ofi&cer, Revenue for enquiry as per its eariier direction vide order dated 20/06/1989. This remand order was challenged by respondent No.2 before the Board of Revenue which has allowed the revision preferred by respondent No.2 and while setting aside tlie remand order passed by Additional Collector^ it has maintamed the order passed by the Sub Divisional Ojfficer, Revenue on 18/09/1991 directing reversion ofland. (4) Leamed counsel for the petitioner would submit that 1he Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue passed the order on 18/09/1991 without summoning the witnesses and without making enquiry as directed by the Additional Collector vide its order dated 20 June, 1989 and hence fhe said order of Sub Divisional OffiGer was rightly set aside and the matter was rightly remanded to the Sub Divisional Officer and the Board ofRevenue committed serious illegality by mterfering with the remand order passed by the Additional Collector. On the other hand, leamed counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as tfie State counsel have supported the order passed by the Board of Revenue by submitting tiiat from the material available on record it is fully established that respondent No.2 belongs to Gond Tribal Community and as such provisions of section 170-B of Chhatisgarh Land Revenue Code are attracted. (5) Leamed counsel for the petitioner has placed on record copy ofthe order sheet ofthe proceedings before the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Mahasamund in which the order dated 18/09/1991 was passed. It is to be seen that vide order dated 20 June, 1989 th©Additional Collector dirocted /••^•^ ..^- ^ ^4- <^3 an enquiry as to whether the respondent No.2 belongs to Beldar Community or is Gond Tribal. The Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, after remand did not grant opportunity to the parties to examine witnesses in support oftheii- respective cases and even after callmg for the report from the Panchayat it did not wait for the said report and straightaway passed the order even without recording statement of witnesses. Thus, it appears thatthe remand order oftfie Additional Collector passed on 20 June, 1989 which was not challenged in appeal by any of fhe parties, has not been complied with and fhe order dated 18/09/1991 has been p^ssed wifhout making enquiry as directed by the appellate court. It is also to be seen that the petitioner has submitted certificate issued by the Gond Adivasi Vikas Parishad to the efifect that Beldar and Gond are two different communities and in the Misal Bandobast name offhe predecessors ofrespondent No.2 is mentioned as Beldar. In one ofthe sale deed dated 17/03/1935 (Annexure P-8) also, c^te of the predecessor of respondent No.2 is mentioned as Beldar, however, on the other hand tiie respondent No.2 has filed certificate of the Gram Panchayat, Kharora to fhe ejffect that respondent No.2 belongs to Gond Tribal Community. (6) In view ofthe conflicting claims and documents submitted by both the parties regarding the caste status of respondent No.2, it was necessary for the Sub Divisional OfBcer to have made detailyd enquiry in to tfiis aspect becausethe said issue touches the jurisdiction of Sub Divisional OflRcer to proceed under section 170-B of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. Thus, the Board ofRevenue committed a serious illegality by setting aside the remand order passed by the Additional Collector. —-4 •^' •^' ^ (^O (7) In the result, the order passed by the Board of Revenue is set aside and Ifae remand order passed by the Additional Collector on 17/09/1996 is affirmed and restored. The concemed Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue shall now enquire the matter by giving opportunity to both the parties to submit documents, examine their witnesses and thereafter the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue shall proceedto decide the matter afiresh. (8) Sub Divisional Ofificer, Revenue shall issue notice to bofh the parties for their appearance and shall fhereafter proceed to make etiquiry in accordance with law. (9) The writ petition stands allowed. (10) No order as to costs. Sd//- Prashant KumarMishra Judge v^