E§Q§i CgiiR’f‘ 6C)? EHE$TTE$GAE~2E ‘Wz'it §3€titi$a W01999 9f 26622 Pefxitr‘gmiem; ishwar Prasac': and: others VersuS Resyoxtdems Su‘Q—DiviSiong-i Of’iica. Sakti ant} <3‘d1ers. POSt far maiea‘ /§' -3—QOO7 W i ma Sdl- ¥ 1 Satish K. Agnihotri \ "" / r Judge V HiGi~i €3§UR ‘E‘ SF CHHAT?§S@ARH: EiLié$FL§§ Wait §3emiun NO 3§9$ of 2W2 (5) Staée of Chhai‘tisgarh, COHeci’m, JanjgéruCham‘na, (Writ §etit§0n Linda ArticEe 227 of the Consiitui‘ian m india) $3: Hon we Mr Jusilce Saush K #xgmmaii. Gwa’ Ram Sa‘wu SIG. Mehan $a‘1m, la am? :a V5 ! *agaipw. Bbuwan Sing?) Sm. F’éi smgh Kawat Re. Earagag, TahsH Sakii‘, Sist. éanjgir—C‘hamya. thwugh §9¥e$em Snri haw: \xva a: 13*1 ahamci mime: for Me petitxmerb Sm‘ U‘karsn Verna {)v Gov“ Aavocaw fo‘ :eaponaems Ne 1 and ,’S*a+e bm’ ANadh I I pa$hh GOUHSQ fDi’ f8$§GP£$YL R302. GR§E§ §Pa3§ed m1 i‘ne ge€iéioners imww the arder dated /§ -§-2§m7} By éhis peiition fiieci unde.’ Articie 227 of Ehe Cms$ituiion cf mdia. $3-8—2é302 (Amexure Pl?) gassed by the Addiiiona] Coiiecior, Janjgir-Chamsa. Wherebv the Gide! Petiiiamers (j) ishwar Prasad agea 02 years, Sfo. Gopa! Ram Semi. (2} Liiadhar aged 29 years, Sh). Gopa§ Ram Saha‘ {3) Khuieshwar aged 2? years, S/o. {303% Ram Sahu. Ail resiaem‘s of griiiage Suakhia TahsH Jagjaipw Dis; "g Janjgir— Cnamfaai. Va'sags Raganéemg (1} Sub-Eiv§s§or3a§ $§f§cer, $a’ai {2) Jamu‘na Sinah 8/5. Bhciaram Rio. ghoéhia, PzAwaora’a, Tahsi; Sam passed by the Authority beiow was set aside and the matter was remitieci back to the Sub-mvisionai offker, $akii, §or afresh dec‘ision‘ 2) The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the iespondent No.2 namely Jamuna Singh made an appiication before ihe Sub-Divisionai Officer} Sakii, under i’ne provisions of Section 17.83 of iiie MPI‘CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred iio as “the Code 1959“), si'ating that the ‘zransfer of "rhe rand in éispuze was made by the rather of k the reeponoient No2 Bhoiaram in favour of Bhuwan (iribai). T reeid transaction is benami "iraneac‘rion as foe reai Owner was Gopairam 3ahu rinen-tribai)‘ The peri’r'roners are iega§ heirs of Gopairam Sa‘nu. The Sub-Divisionai Officer, Sak‘ti, directed reversion of fee said iand Viee his orcier dared 7-4-1S99 ‘J w,eigeE 3) The petitioners chaiienged the order dated T-e—i39§ passed by 'ihe Sub—Divisionai Officer, Sakti, before the Adeitionai Coiiecior, Janjgir-Champa, on the ground that rhe petitioners are not made parties arid the respondent No.2 nae secured rhe order by suppressing maieriai facts it was stated that "rhe peiitioners purchased iz’ne par“; or iarid bearing Khasra No. 1387i? area Q56 acre in pieces from Yacihistrrir, Bhowan and Dhurandhar. The iano’ was aurohased wi’rn irre prior oermission or rhe Additionai Coiiecror, Janjgir—Shampa. The Addi‘riorrai Coi%ector, Janigir-Cnarnpa, after having considered eff toe aspects, vide order dated 23-8-1 999 (Annexure Pi2) neid fhaf the order oassed by the Sub-Divisional CJ‘fficer, Sakti, was contrary to the gorincipies of naturai ius’tice as the parfies in possession were not given any nofice of nearing, fhe order passed by foe Sub-Divisionai Officer, Sak‘ri, was sef aside and fhe same was remr‘rfeci back fo the Sub-{Divisions} Gffioer, Sakii, for fresh decision afiea' affcrding an opgor‘tunéty cf heamg is ai’: ihe parties Additionai CG§§ecioL Janigir-Champa. "fhe Coiéeckor, Janggir-Ci'aam§a vide oyde¥ da‘ied ’33-8—2002 (Annexme PMX after having cons§dereci a§§ a the 'facis in deiaii, set aside ihe orde? ciated W-At-QGQ‘O sassed by me Sub-Eivisionai O§icen Sak‘i'i, {Annemi‘e 9‘3} and remancied back ‘i‘ne mafia? ta Sub—EivisianaE O§icen Saki}. to cons§de¥ the case efmsh on. the fo‘élowing groumis: 1. maww§ as 9241i smwgaa axia’xr W {15W Ba1§%awéva¥aée‘§mwe{§§maW$ WWW@E§HWW§7 WWYnéQ§Iw€ez5afWr§a§§wqWV5 wmgfe c”, 17%??? m1! Wmmgsm @m w @%1W*a eww , as we? gm. . m a W. ’? A 11E wW Qi—gam aa‘m ,. W . wife 33 W5 , a? a? mm§w%ms§§msw%e$a?m WIT@%§H%HB?€%{%$$W§9$%3§Q§% W. .mx’? 31% if; w §w at 2% We“ Wide an If m 1” L3 Q) concerneQ‘ 4-} On remand, the Sub-D§vis§onai Cfficer, $ak1‘é, v§de omier dated 17-4-ZDGQ (#Kmexure P13}. hemi ‘zha’t the purchase 0‘? the §amd in dispute was wii‘n the garior pefmission a? The Addiiionai Coi§ector, Jar1jg%?- .M Cihamga. ihus, {he provisions of Secticm i'i’G-B 0f ihe C.P.C., we¥e no? aiii'ac‘xed to the case‘ t I? 5} Being aggfieved‘ the petitioners furihe? fi§ed an aggeai gef’ore the J 8, The petwoners have impugmd me order on ihe ground iha‘i: ihere cannot be any enqmry a‘Fier-a period 0f thirteen years. The purported ia’a‘ns’ier of we §and in d§spute fmm tyibai te aiioé‘hw iribai and thereafter subsequent transfer wifn the piior pea‘miseiom of the Additior‘ai Coilecior! is net the subject mai‘xe‘r of am; enquiry ami the respondem' No.2 has no $ocus siam‘i "co cha§§errge fee Eransferv i 7) i have hearty? éeamed counsei for the paftées, pemsed the e5 pieedings anti the documerits appended thereto. The abjeegfcgef $ecfion 1?G~B of ihe Code, 1§5§, is to proieot Hanefers of Woe} boos in scheduled areee to non-ti'iba§s, in ‘ihe eveiii' ii %s found the? me posseseion of mod by noo-tribai was no: in accordance wi’ih £aw. The provisions of Section WQ—B o?‘ ine Code 195$, provide for mversion of iand. of the members of aborigina§ tribe which was trans§erred ’oy fraud. Tnus‘ on mere reaeiag of oeriain eosumems, §’ canno‘: be new that ihe object, which songni to be aohieved oy ine inoorporaéion of Seoiion 170% in the Code, vide no’efioaiion dated 2440-1 988, has achieved iis purpose. Teas, i? is necessary rear i’ne controversy has i0 be enquired info proeeriy. The impvgoed order gassed by ine Additionai Coiieotor, Janigir—Céaampa, is in- furineranoe of objects and purpose oz? the provisions of Section 170— B of iihe Code, 1959. 8) in view of the above, i‘do not find any perversity, iiiegaiity or irreguierity warranting interference with the impugned order eassed by i‘ne Auri'iori'zy ’oeiow. Thus, the petition is accordingiy dismissedi i‘io order as to oosis. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Raj Li i***\