Hi<3H_COURTOE CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR ish Bhaliai_Aa. C,_J. l^s;:S^;^^?iss., l^s;'^is^^1-^^ i"'3\ W.P No.3298 of 1994 Budhiyar Sahu, Aged about 40 years. S/o Punitram Sahu, Kastiapara, Dhamtari, Distt. Raipur SM.P.) Mehtar Sahu, Aged about 50 years, S./o Durjan Sahu Ghurau Rsm Aged about 45 years, S/o Sadhuram Ramaial Aged about 34 years, S/o Daharamram Sahu Kapil Aged about 40 years, S/o Goursingh Sahu. Girdhari, Aged about 45 years, S/o Durjan Kamiesh Kumar A.ged about 1 8 vears, S/o Harishankar Sahu, Pettioners No.2 to 7 - All residents of viilage Khaira, Tahsil Durud, District yersus 2. Johatram, Aged 30 yeare, S.o Ajab Singh, R/o Gram Dhankhalra, Tahsil Dhamtari, District Ralpur; M.P. (nowCG) Shalikram Chandrakar, Aged about 50 vrs. S/o Dehraram Chandrakar. R/o Viilage Chati, Tahsii Dhamfari. District Raiour Board of Revenue. M.P.. uwauor The Coltector, Raipur Sub Divisional Officer, Dhamtari, District Raipur, M.P. Naib Tahsildar. Dhamtan, M.P. VVrii Detition under Artictes 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Fresent : None tor tne petitioners. Shri N.K. Agrawal, Dy. A.G. fonheState. The petitioners had exchanged their respective land with respondenis No. and 2 vi'ho are Adivasi. According to Section 170-B of ths Land Revenue ._^L 2. faies' w^^ •as'EtSS'Aa. g-;,;•£<.•'ss;^^ >Si!i.'.;^.L..I . l^^^l^h^^sa. fW-'W^'K-t^^sS Cods;1959 it is incumbent upon the pet'tioners to furn;sh the said information. Seoiion 170-B reads as follows : "I170-B. Revereion of iand of members of aborlginai tribe tvtilch was transferr&d by fraud. (1) Evep/ person vi'ho on the date of commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revsnue Code (Amendment) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act of 1980) is in possessign of agricultural iand which be!onged to a member of a tribe w'nlch has been declared to be an aborigina! tribe under sub-section (6) of section 165 behveen the period commencing on the 2 October, 195S and endina on the daie of the commencsment of Amendment Act, 198Q shall, within [teo years] of such oommencement, notiry to the Sub-Divisional Officer in such form and in suc'n manner as mav be prescribed, al! the information as to how he has come in possession of such iand. (2) !f any person fails to notify the informaiion as required by sub-section (1) within the period specified therein i? shal] be presumed that such person has been in possession of the agricultura! iand without any iawful authority and the agricultural 'and sha!l, on the expiration of the period aforesaid rsvert to the person to whom it originai'y beionged and if thot person be dead, to his ie.aal heirs. [(2-A) If a Gram Sabha In the Sc'neduied area referred to in clause (1) of Articie 244 of the Constitution finds that any person, other than a memb'er of an aboriginal tribe, is in possession of any tend of a Bhumis.vam'1 belong'ng to an aboriginai tribe, without any ia'wji authority, it s'nali restore the possesslon of suc'n iand to t'nat person to vi'hom it originai!'/ belonged s.",d ifthat person is dead to his ieaal heirs: Providec that if the Grarn Sabha fails to restors the Dossession of such land, it shali refer the matter to the Sub- Divisional Officer, >who shaii restore the possession of such iand within three months from the date of receipt ofthe reference.] (3) On receipt ofthe information under sub-section (1), the Sub-Divislonal Officer shal! make such enquiry as may be deemed necessary about all such transactions of transfer and it he finds that the member of aboriginal tribe has been defrauded of his iegitimate right he s'nal! deciare the transaction null and void S:s9Wls9^. F'"""" ""SS^ ^, and pass an order re-vesting the anricuitural !and in the transferer ana', if he Is dead, in his iegal heirs.j [(3) On receipt ofthe information under sub-section (1) the Sub-Divisionai OfTicer shaii make such enquiry as may be neoessary about aii such transactions of transfer snd if he finds that the member or aboriainal tr'be has been defrauded of his iegitimate right he shaii declare the transaction nuli and void and- (a) where no building or structure has been erected on the agricultural !and prior to such finding pass an order re-vesting the agricuitura! land in the transferer and if he be dead, in his legal heirs. (b) Where any busiding or structure has been erected on the agricuiiural land prior to such finding; he shali nx the price of such land in accordance with the princlpies [aid down for fixstion of price of iand in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (No. 1°£.1894) and order the person referred to in sub-section (1) to pay to ths transferer the difference, if any, between the price so fixed and the price actuaily paid to the transferer: Provided that where the buiiding or structure has been erected afier the 1 day of januar/, 1984 the provisions of ciause (b) above shal! not apply: Provided further that fixafion of price under ciause (b) shall be with reference to the prioe on the date of registration of the case before the Sub-DivisionaJ Offioer.] The Sub Divislonai Officer by his order dated 29-06-1987 deciared this exchange of land as bad in iaw. Aocordingly, the Sub Divisional Officsr directed the petitioner to handover the land of Adivasi back to them. Thereafter the petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional Coilector which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 23-10-92 as none had appeared on behaif of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, She petitioners approachsd the Additional Commissioner who set-aside the order oassed &v the Additionai Coilector and remanded the matter back to the Additiona! Coliector. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners filed an appeai before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by Its order dated 06-06-1994 confirmed the order passed by Sub Divisionaj Oifice'. Hence, this writ petition. ^ After hearing counsei for the parties, 1 am of the opinion that the petitioners had not compiied with the provisions of Section 170-B as referred hereinabove. i further flnd that the impugned order vvas passed after affording due opportunity to the petitioners to adduce evidence befors the Sub Divisional Officer. However, this Court finds that learned counsel rer the petitioner faiied to substantiate the mandatorv compliance of furni^hinfl information io the party concemed uncier Section 170-B of the Land Revenue Code, 1959. !n vievv of above, there is no i!iega!ity in the order passed by the Court beiow and the same is in accordance with law. Thus, no interference is calied fcr in the impugned order. Petltion is dismissed. — ^ Acting Chief Justice Kim>k- S^^^^^Ns". ??'Eili^'g:'S:^^?Si """"^•s.^y^f'^.