my? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition No.1123 of 2001 PETITIONER: Sitaram s/o Parasram, aged years, r/o village Akaltara, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir—Chama (C.G.) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh 2. The Addl. Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur. The Addi. Collector, Janjgir—Cham‘pa. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sakti, District Janjgir—Champa. 5. 'Sonkunwar s/o Rikhiram Gond, r/o Village Kotetara, Tehsil Sakti, District Janjgir—Champa. {Writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of lndia} RESPONDENTS: Present: Mr. Ajay Mishra, counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. V.R. Tiwari, counsel for respondent No.5. Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (7—12—201 1) 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of § the order dated 20—4—2001 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in Case No.72/A—23/2000-2001 dismissing the revision on the ground of limitation and affirming the order dated 31—3- 2000 passed by the Additional Collector, Janjgir—Champa in Appeal Case No.47 A 23/97-98, reversing the order dated 10-8-98 passed by the Sub Divisional Ofhcer (Revenue), Sakti in Revenue Case No.63 A 23/97-98, whereby the Sub DiVisional Officer has dismissed the application filed on behalf of respondent No.5 herein under Section 170B of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. By reversing the order, the Additional Collector has allowed the application and directed for<return of possession of the property to respondent No.5. p 2. i have heard Iearned counsel for the parties, perused all orders impugned and copies of other documents. 3. As per initial order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) has not enquired. into the matter relating to the fact that whether the transaction was fraudulent, but by reversing the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), the Additional Collector has allowed the application and directed for return of possession of the property to the member of aboriginal tribe. The Additional Collector was under obligation to hold enquiry or to remit the case for holding enquiry to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), but instead of making enquiry, the Additional Collector has passed order and thereby committed illegality. Consequently, the orders passed by the Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner are not sustainable under the law. 4. The petition deserves to be allowed and it is hereby allowed. Order dated 10-8-98 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sakti in Revenue Case No.63 A 23/97-98; order dated 31-3-2000 passed by the Additional Collector, Janjgir—Champa in Appeal Case No.47 A 23/97-98; and order dated 20-4-2001 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in Case No.72/A—23/2000-2001 are hereby quashed. No order as to costs. 5. The case is remitted back to the Court of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sakti for deciding the case afresh after providing opportunity ~- of hearing to the parties. 6. Parties are directed to present before the Court of Sub Divisional Officer ‘ (Revenue), Sakti on 1-2-2012. 1 //\ Sd/- T. P. Shanna Jge ud