w IN THE Hlwi CCURT (F JUDICATURE g JABALmm. \W Noqkw%3 Writ petition Noqkw%3 i1999. CFnoou112377 ‘ PETITION§ Smt. Vimla .Wd/o Shri Baliram‘ Chhatri resident of Tilaknagar, Bghsyg‘g‘g - Versts - RES?0NDENT$ : 1a-State of Madhya Ekadesh Through 3 Secretary, Departmeny, of Revenue, Vallabh Bhavani, Bhogl, 2n Additi onal Commissioner, BilaSpur Divisicn‘, Bihsgg. 3- Additional Cellector, Collectcrate, glasgm g 4.: Sub Divisionu 0££icér (Revenue) n Kota, Di£trict— Eggas‘gmtm. r 5-. Udayzéhand s/e Shri Chhaditam-f‘ ‘ Netam, res‘ idént ’of Usliapur, ; ; Tah’sil — Takhartpuri, Disff‘ictu Bilas§£. ~\ , ‘C ‘pETITIONER UmER ARTICLFS .226 AND ‘22’9‘; OE mg . g x 7; ’ IR, ’JT( )m ‘6Ih3)7v gprSTI‘IUTIGN OFJNDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A_}1VRIT IN M<‘ ac“ J ”'J/ J gHE Nama‘qgggggmmImnDAA/w. maumnow 51g k ‘ .Jj 1., particuiaxs gf the petitiorge; As above. ‘ 2o ‘Par'ticulars of §faBes p ancients : As abOVe. : lOnef‘. Rajpu'r, Advocafe for fhe pe‘ri‘r Shri Vashwanf Singh Thakur, Govt Advocafe for The S'mfe/ respondenfs No.1 f0 4. Shri P. P. Sahu, counsel 1 :or- responden‘l' No.5. The pe'ri‘rioner has preferred fhis wri'l' pe'ri‘l‘ion ques‘l‘ioning The mess of fhe order da'red 28-8—1995 fficer, responden'r No‘4,also fhe order ‘l‘he Addifional Collector, respondenf -96, and also The order daTed 11-5-99 missioner, respondenf No.2, in revision Iegali‘ty, pr‘qprie‘ry and correc passed by 'rhe Sub Divisional C dafed 27-2-1997 passed by No.3, in appeal No.1-A/23/95 passed by fhe Addifional Com No.180—A/23/96-97. - Brief facfs necessary fi ’rhaf responden‘i’ No.5 herein The Collector on 22-2-93 wil herein 901' his land iilegaily reg possession. He is a Tribe by illegal possession of his land, 1 him. On fhis complaint ‘rhe Ai recorded The sfa‘l‘emen‘l‘ of U xure-P/3. AfTer recording The finding Annexure-P/4, he forwarded The same To The S.D.O. foranWpry ir The disposal of This wriT peTiTion are filed a complainT Annexure-P/1 before 'h The allega'l'ions ThaT The peTiTioner iisTered in her name and has Taken The casTe and The peTiTioner herein is in ‘herefore, his land be reverTed back To idiTional CoilecTor made an enquiry and reporf of Pa‘l'wari Halka Anne :laychand on 9-3-93 and called for The XI-HC—22 3am, m,W Wm WW‘WP‘NQ..Qg.’? 6200 W mamm WW Wizavi%’cr mwmwm $WW mmatm 26-7-2005 5hri Manindm Shrivasmva, 5r. Advoca‘i’e with Shri'AnH Singh XI—HC—22 wiswr fifwm §W€Hf%a action. As a consequence o1: ‘Hm'r, The $.D‘O. affer registering fhe case under Sec‘h'on 170 (B: Code, 1959, proceeded wi'rh fhe enquiry and passed 28—8-95 Thai The iand in ques‘l'ion has been fransfe of fhe pe‘i‘i‘rioner who is no‘r a fribe and same has been. purchased a? much below fhe prevaien‘i' price in The markeT aT The reievanT Time. He also recorded The finding ThaT The peTiTioner is. sub-casTe of ‘Kanwar’, which is a Tribe class, buT being ChaTri, The peTiTioner is noT enTiTled for The benefiT which are of The Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue "i'he order da‘l’ed rred in “the name a ChaTri which is Q available To $.T., and ulTimaTely, he ordered for resToraTion of The land To respondenT No.5. Being aggrieved by The same, The peTiTioner herein preferred on appeal before The Add Tional CollecTor and learned AddiTional CollecTor affirmed The order passed by The 5.D.O.. peTiTioner herein again preferred a revision before The AddiTional Commissioner and The Add Tional Commissioner also affirmed The ' order, Therefore, quesTionin The legaliTy of all The Three orders The peTiTioner herein filed This riT peTiTion. I have heard Shri Then The 5ingh Thokur, GovT. Advoca e for The STaTe/ respondenTs No.1 To 4 and Shri P. P. Sahu, counsel or respondenT No.5. 1%) .//, anindra ShrivasTava, Sr. AdvocaTe wiTh Shri, Anil Singh RajpuT, Ad iocaTe for The peTiTioner, Shri YashwanT XI—HC—22 anéswr Wm amizw%a Pmdesh Land Revenue Code, provision was no‘r a‘H’mc’rec Transfer in ques'i'ion by The of fhe peiifioner by respo provisions of Section 170(Bi pertains prioi‘ ‘i'o 24-10-80, exfem‘ is iiiegai dad confmri fhe Madhya Pmdesh Land Re Now, The ques1’ion lef1 pe'rifioner' is no? a fribe whe be a fribe and cer-Tifica‘re i Tehsiidur on 23-4-90 was sL has no‘l’ been Taken info cons of page 3 of his order if is m cosie, $.T. class, bu'r he is n< any person even if belonging benefiT of The consTiTuTio al righTs as Tribe. expressed any opinion abou The cerTificaTe Annexure-P/7 issued in favour of The peTiTioner. W en The peTiTioner was claiming herself To be a Tribe, Therefore, The pr visions of sub-secTion (6) of SecTion 165 were noT aTTracTed. As far as fhe applica‘bilify of Secfion 170(3) of fhe Mudhya 1959 is concerned, admif'rediy, 'rhe said in fhis case for ’rhe reason Tho? The oegisfered saie deed was made in favour nden‘rs in The year 1985 whereas, The ) are aTTracTed only when The Transfer Therefore, finding of/The S.D.O. To This I To The provisions of SecTion 170 (B) of venue Code. is ThaT The 5.D.O. has recorded ThaT The ~eas, The peTiTioner is claiming herseif To ’o ThaT effecT Annexure-P/T issued by bmiTTed by The peTiTioner, buT The same deraTion by The 5.D.O. and in paras-1 & 3 :corded ThaT The purchaser is of 'Kanwar’ 3T Tribe. In para-1 he has recorded ThaT To ‘Kanwar' Tribe is noT enTiTled for The BuT, he has noT / XI—HC—22 mam mm §6m7mi>6a Wmmw “4w “3% In 1'he given sifua‘l'ion, learned 5.D.O. in order f0 ascertain The claim pu'r forwarded by The pe‘l’iTioner Tha‘f she. belongs To a Tribe To have adop‘l'ed The procedure as laid a commiwwb$ 5.D.O. ough’r déwn by Ai’heWHon'ble Apex CourT in fhe ma'H'er of KUMARI 'THER VS‘ ADDL. COMMISSIONER. TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT AkD OTHER5 rgpor‘red in AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 94 wherein fhe Hon'blie Apex Cour-T laid ’down a 'IcaTion of The casTe cerTificaTe by The done. If 1'he pefi‘rioner is able 1'0 esfablish fha’r she belongs +0 $.T., in fha’r case, clause—2 of sub- sec‘i'ion (6) of Sec'rion 165 wi Therefore, only on fhis groun ‘ihe impugned orders are liable 1’0 be seT aside, as such The impugne orders are seT aside. The ma'Her is sen'i back To 5.D.O., KoTa wi‘rh a direction ‘rhaf in fhe firsf ins'rance, he should ascer‘l’ainmen‘r of ‘l'he caste o ‘repori’ affer giving an oppor‘h. Udaychand, decide ihe ma-‘H'er procedure ‘ihaf how The verifl scrufiny commiffee is +0 be MADL-MRI xRATIL AND ANO I no? be af'rracfed in This fransaci’ion. The wriT peTiTion is disposed of accordingly. :erTified copy of This order. V Par'l’ies are en'l'i'l'led for S fer fhe ma'r'rer 'ro The commi‘H’ee for f The peTiTioner and on receiving The ini‘ly To The peTiTioner and complainanT afresh in accordance wiTh law. /. L C BHADOO Judge New gob W’W W3” /\