HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Writ Petition No.4851 of 1996 Rajan alias Rajendra Kumar Gond and others - Versus - Board of Revenue and others Post for pronouncement of order on 19th October. 2011 y Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge yr HiGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS: Writ Petition No.4851 of 1996 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Rajan alias Rajendra Kumar Gond, S/o Ramchandra Gond, aged about 28 years, Sagar Mal alias Sagar Kumar Gond, S/o Ramchandra, aged about 26 years, Dharam Beer Gond, S/o Ram Chandra Gond, aged about 24 years, Bhagbati Gond D/o Ramchandra Gond, aged about 32 years, Meena Kumari Gond D/o Gond, aged about 30 years. Ramchandra All C/o Main Road, In front of Rajhara Timber, Dalli Rajhara, Tahsil Dalli Rajhara, Distt. Durg (M.P.) (now C.G.). Versus Board of Revenue, Gwalior (M.P.). Madhya Pradesh State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisgarh) through Secretary, Revenue Govt. of M.P. (now Govt. of C.G.) Satpuda Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) {now D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)}. The Collector, Durg (M.P.) (now C.G.). The Sub Divisional Officer, Dalli Rajhara, Distt. Durg (M.P.) (now C.G.). The Tahsildar, Dalli Rajhara, Tah. Dalli Rajhara, Distt. Durg (M.P.) (now C.G.). Shri Ramchandra Gond, S/o Late Nivar Gond, Main Road, Near Rajhara Timber, Rajhara, Distt. Durg (M.P.) (now C.G.). 7. Sukhdeo (Died and deleted) 7(A). Dewar Singh S/o Sukhdeo 7(B). Dewnath Thakur S/o Sukhdeo Both r/o village Karutola, Tahsil Balod, Distt. Durg (C.G.). 8. Smt. Baniharin W/o Nohru Halba, r/o Village Ghurvatola, Tahsil Balod, Distt. Durg(M.P.)(nowC.G.). 9. Smt. Dharmin bal, W/o Dhukhvan Halba, r/o Village Karutola, Tahsil Balod, Distt. Durg (M.P.)(nowC.G.). ^3*^ /^2.A 1 '•[W^% jj '\. ""^' \1 ^ 10. Shri Jhumuklal Bhedia, Ex. M.L.A. Daundi Lohara, Ex. Cabinet Minister (Commerce Industry Health) State of M.P. r/o Balod, Tahsil Balod, Distt. Durg(M.P.) (now C.G.). {Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India} Present: Mr. V.G. Tamaskar, counsel forthe petitioners. Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.2, 3, 4 and 5. None present for other respondents. -y Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (19-10-2011) 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged legality and propriety ofthe order dated 21- 2-96 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur in Revenue Case No.34/A-23/95-96 dismissing the revision filed against the order dated 31-12-94 passed by the Additional Collector, Durg in Revenue Appeal Case No.22/A-23/93-94 whereby the Additional Collector has dismissed the appeal filed against the order dated 30-5-94 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Balod in Revenue Case No.7A/23 Year 1984-85 by which the Sub Divisional Officer has directed for return of land to members of Scheduled Tribe under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the orders impugned and copies of other documents. 3. Initially, at the instance of members of Scheduled Tribe, the Sub Divisional Officer has directed for return of land to members of Scheduled Tribe vide order dated 17-4-1986 which was challenged before the appellate forum. The case was remanded for reinvestigation and after reinvestigation, the Sub Divisional officer has directed for return of land to members of Scheduled Tribe. Original purchaser Smt. Udasi Devi, wife of Ramchandra Prasad, has claimed herself as member of Scheduled Tribe, as Gond. Ramchandra Prasad was resident of Gorakhpur (Uttar Pradesh) where Gonds were members of Scheduled Caste and not members of Scheduled Tribe, but Gonds in Madhya >..^, -y ^ ••^7i Soma Pradesh/Balod Tahsil are members of Scheduled Tribe and not members of Scheduled Caste. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the Sub Divisional Officer was not competent to decide the caste of Ramchandra/ caste of wife of Ramchandra, purchaser of the land in dispute. Aforesaid revenue courts have committed illegality by deciding the caste of purchaser and affirming such finding. 5. As per the orders impugned and other documents, purchaser Smt. Udasi Devi or her husband Ramchandra Prasad Gond were not residents of erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh or the State of Chhattisgarh or District Durg, but were residents of Gorakhpur (U.P.) where Gonds are members of Scheduled Caste. 6. Notifications have been issued under Articles 341 & 342 of the Constitution of India for the concerned State. Admittedly, Gonds of U.P. have not been notified as members of Scheduled Tribe or members of aboriginal tribe for the State of Madhya Pradesh or the State of Chhattisgarh. 7. After considering aforesaid facts and the fact that the alleged transaction was fraudulent transaction, the revenuecourts have directed for return of possession of the land to members of aboriginal tribe/Scheduled Tribe. By passing such orders, the revenue authorities/courts have not committed any illegality orjurisdictional error requiring any interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge