/ mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILA^PBR WRIT PETITION (O No.l21of2U07 PETITIONER RE8PONDENTS Udai Ram S/o Bahoran Sahu, aged about 67 years, occupation cultivation, resident of Kalmi; Tahsil Malkharoda, District Jaajgir Champa(C.G.) VERSUS : 1. The Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, fhrough its president, Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG) 2. The Additional CoIIector, Janjgir Champa (CG) 3. The Sub Divisional OfEcer, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa (CG) 4. Visram S/o Gangu Ram Bhaiaa, occupation cultivation, resident of Kalmi Tahsil Malkharoda, Distriet Janjgir Champa (CG). WRITraTm01MUNDERAKIICLE2Z70FTHECONymimONOFSTOA, Single Bench: Hoii'bleJustice ShiiSatishK. Agrahotri. Present: Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Miss Deepali Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the State/'Respondents lto3. ORDER (Passed on 30ul day ofApril, 2007) 1. The petitioner is questioning the legality and validity of the order datedlS.: (Annexure P/10)passedbytheBoaidofRevenueiD Revenue Case No. 445/A-23/02-03 whereby and whereuader Ifae revision was partly allowed and fhe matter was remitted back to the Collector/Additional Collector, Janjgir-Champa to cossider the matter a. fresh after hearing the parties. The facts in brief are that the land ia dispute bearing Khasra HO, 793 area 0.48 acres and Khasro no. 794/3 area 0.53 acres belong to the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!?^^^^^^b^wN :^ tribe namely Visiam, Udeshwar Ram and Kartik Ram, The pctitioner was in possession of the said land, The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) vide order dated 23.10.1997 (Amsexure P/5) passed an order to enter the name of the tribe, who were declared as aborigmsl tribe, in Ihe revenue records and possession was to be handed over thereof. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Janjgir<;hampa. The Additional Collector, Janjgir- Champa, vide order dated 18.6.2003 (Annexure P/6) came to the conclusion that the petitioner pwchased the disputed land after obtaining prior approval ofAdditional Collector, BUaspur. However, the petitioner has failed to comply wifh the provisions of section 170- B ofthe M.P/C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") by not Botifying the possession ofthe agrictiltural land which belonged to a member oftribe within the preseribed time. Thus, the disputed land is restored back to the original tribal land holder. In view ofthat, the Additional Collector dismissed the appeal, The Board of Revenue found that the disputed agricultural land belonged to Kartik Ram. He is survived by Sona Ram and MonaRam, his legal heirs. Therefore directing to make entry m revenue records in the name of Visram s/o Gangu, Udeshwar and Kartik Ram witfaout impleading legal heirs of deceased Kartik Ram was violative of principles of natural justice as well as provisions of seetion 170-B (2A) ofthe Code. The authorities below ought to have issued proper notice to the legal heirs of Kartik Ram before passing the order of restoring baok possession ofthe land to other persons than the legal heirs ofthe original land holder, wbo is a tribe. 5. I have heard the leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perosed the pleadings and the records appended thereto. The reasons recorded by the Board of Revenue is just and proper and no interfereHce is warranted with the impugaed order in exercise of power of supervisoryjurisdiction underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. There is no irregularity, illegalily or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. 6. Thus, as a result, this petition is dismissed summarily. 7. Consequently, M(W)P No. 262/2007, I.A 718/2007 aad I.A.No. 1, application for grant of interim relie( application for taking documents on record and application for listing the case out oftum for urgent hearing, respectively, stands disposed of. sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge Amd. ^