^i§K;"ut)ISS'S: sss^ i!SV^MS BSlll WS 8111 ^^.^•"^^^. IBS811?tl1 SKB^Ml iSSSSSiSSSS^U t^'SSSS^iSc^B^.S^S.^S^iSSSMS^vi Wi i BR®siN^ BI®!%%1 WiS:"-fS^^ .® l^^^^-'''; ^'"•^^.^ ^^^ ; s^,^ .''/: ^•Sp-^ii s.\/;;'/ w:^ a s, :.^- - ' .1!; ra ' ra:<6 •'•: W-l - .••En-ifl .(11;^;, .'Q •-:*> .E" (• ;1:"'E.&1-:.1 m.cncii. 'fci11 id £;• E) fi •~-, w^.^; Ti::'^^a>.liB; iii;jy' +>' EO ;ft(lm' (1) ,.-l:;lfl •rl;^T-l ffl +J; IIII-'-('-">' -^'•^^.•H s^'^:; \+J:: i-i 00- m; .fd.~~<~~sT-) WyWQ ii): ••rl1 - H, - '• 3 ' .H. !r-i • '<a !;a: m-ci.1 liti 4 Q' • -» S' f: •m w£l'~- l+)'>i' (li (Q ^"<tl :^' •h.) t--/l:Q~< r< i • !-i 'Q .:.tt> 11 S. ^ai-^' W g!?n31 tfl ).T-1.' W. ^t ^r-! ffl f0 '(T(i-rl «; s^ 7.^:'-i-': i0 •i3:',:i-p r-(- ai! o-ta •3:! ~^.;.:1: iai.rel.oi' Q N (B (B1.,; f-1. •j3 +^;.. IS: 0 a) s, ?-r>ii ^.l'IQ A •O, <B -a:' --a)-p)..iii: .(t!WI;'E; .» &-1. .IB'C j3-:a)' >'ni: 'a ^::^ g n)-^i o;.,ifl 13:-i^ ':.£;. l;:."!ti-i..n' M-1, • OF @l-s^;-fl •• w • a rn ? +) rt' ';4^ l0 4.1 r-t 10, ^ Dir-! .P .C (B'.tli m .E-< B > r-1 'SfS ,1 ':'.'( r'i>rf.{ •^v^^s^ -fij-s-t :'MM •^KxiA!?. "-Kffi .tif'ia ,,(S :!-1:»-, - (I) •S-1-' 1'1-':'")' ;m -p ' iv 'sa ?);(?, «aa, i^::''i: l(li,-l-):.1 a-ff' 'O.itn1:. -^•^. ia''a~ m" •' '.•MY'h' •'\;^, ^t^ Q'rf £):'ifl '/.:'!3~ aj.en- ' -a x, ;^^: N ^^ J3'ltl. E-<^ •.---••v^o,,./; •;-)1'<.1-^<'; ,:<U'P,i7/ ';:®*;? 1-!-!"-« w?.)* ,.M-1 'IV: O '•(.' n,: ln-l;1d. ! Ai) :; a 'ifi' ,0+1- ^ *>^: . m w', •-^.i-H- /:^% .•'•*~1\1.';^!'" •:ia^,: '.'s.^.1 ^s'^' CO n):1 \.-,'!3;,; flj.cn^ •i'ss ^&t.l-i •;!' .(A1.11^.-,:^ :^!Si'''Q. K i:::tS:fi.Sl.,!:i -'itK: .^o,^^:^11 ! .(i)il-(l';'r.' &l^ff)w1.' ;ll'l.f0''ja^'' ;.'.';0/... :;<G-^4:,<(-. &:SI:'-~J^ S ,.0'A^. ..i^.i'irttS;' ^.^,!Si,f-", W'iw' •.,a.,(»".[g- '•<.,.;t!l..j.)^:: m;;. 'ltii* ^.;::':(r-(;,,td:!, 1'11'S!!1-1^- fc-'-ls-*? ^: R^% -i; i^W '.^aSQiX .':'!<K®:!; ,;'%,:^gi^ :i:tf/ •l.'^^ 'Q^. '<Utf(I)';' "a.-i. 'd;>B;; :^'i-a11' i S; '^^ ^W-sS. K •^S'iS:: s^ :^Q;1(.-:; ^'''-..;'!1>,, ii'WifS': 'fM'wa ^s'-ti .;,^,a)l' ^& :ss VWQ ••Vfl^i ^rtl.^-si :*S(N'1' ^:^'}.^.- •r;^-K.^ S's ~w^s^ '!ff-"i?w^..V,~-sc.s.,:^.t ^(.(^fti^ga !ii4Ji •^:^ -S .i-ir^'.-'e1 l,,:al'«0.i;';,':B:i. ' ta.'rfKiS ^p1'^! !':<it.'• ;'IR ^! .:,% :'.?;; '-' / .:^ :.:.;!:'i ' ^.^,,1'-,.'^;-1 .',..'-: A<K. ...X,;: :„'.;., j';' ,-„;:, -B''i:'^.':;l:'!':''y't^'-^'.';i-s:'i;tl.»fc^.''..';;;lir^ iil..:'.-<'x^^:-^;ly:;r'^>^;g%%:l?'^y.'^ "s^jSsV^Si^^S1: •^-••^fw'^^^'S~~»''-^S'^SSK i 'b HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Si(wte Beiwh: Hon'Ute ShiLh^Bce Prashart Kurmr Misftra Petitioners ana oiners. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others. Shri Prafutt Bharat counsel for the petitioners. Shri Sushee! Dubey, Govf. Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4/Sf; None for respondent No.5. Writ PetiUCTi Under Artide 228 & 227 allowna the Heard leamed counsel for the parties finalty. (2) The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the Order dated 31.03.97 Commisstoner, Bastar Division, Jagadalpur, petition Tited by the respondent No.5 to 7 herein. (3) The Tacts of the case in short is that one Gango owns 3.55 -acres of land bearing Khasra No.255 at viilage Bagmohalai , Tahsi! Jagdalpur, Dist. Bastar. From the documents (Annexure P/1) •A'hich !.s a copy of records of rights of the year 1954-55 and Annxure-P/2 copy of Kist Bandi Khatoni for the year 1957-58 , it would appear that one Nanda Matwa forefather of the petSioners had purehased the land from Gango prior to 02.10.1959, i.e. the date on vMch the M.P, Land Revenue Code came into force. (4) After the commencement of the M.P. Land Revenue Code Amendment Act, 1980 (Act No.15 of 1980), any person who is on possession of the any land belonging to a tribai, at any point of tirn< after the commencement of the Code, sha!) be required to submit information to the revenue officer as to the nature of the possession. 'f possesston is found to have been acquired in a frauduiar manner, -s- ^•r the competent authority has been empowered to pass the order reverting backthe land to the triba! holder of the land. (5) The original holder Gango moved an applicatton for reversion of the land which was rejected by the Sub Divisional Officsr on i.1979 (Annexure-P/3) on the ground that the transaction is prior to the year 1958-59, theretore, relevant law is not applicabte. The legal heire of Gango moved another appBcation, this time under Section 170(8) of the Code seeking reversion of land in their favour on the ground that the land was mortgaged to Nanda. The Sufa Divisional Officer vide his Order dated 21.01.1993 (Annexure-P/5) allowed the applteation and ordered for reversion of I and. (7) The petitioner's father Fuluram son of Nanda moved a rewew petition before the Sub Divisional Officer for reviewing the Order dated 21.01.1993. The said review petition was ailowed by the Sub Divisional OTfcer on 15.04.1993 (Annexure-Pf?) . Order of rsversicn was thus recalled. The respondents No. 5 to 7 preferred an appea! before the Addftional Collector, Jagdalpur, which was dismissed by the said revenue officer on 27.12.1993 (Annexure-P/8). A review petition fited by respondent No.5 Mangalu before the Additional Collector 'was also dismissed on 27.06.1994 (Annexure-P/9). [8) Respondents No. 5 to 7 thereafter preferred a revision ;siion the Commisstoner, Bastar Division which has been a! mpugned order dated 31.03.1997 (Annexure- (9) Shri Bharat, teamed counsel for the petftioner submlts that order passed by the Commissioner is ex facie itlegal and improper. Ths Commissioner has not assigned c^ent reason and has not deaft wrth the real issues as to whether the provisions contained in Section 170 (B) of the Code is applicable in the present case or not. He has re'ied on the decision taken by the M.P. High Court reported in 199S Revenue Nimav 184 in the case of ROOD ChanriVs. Board ofRevenue to bsAtress his submission, Shri Susheel Dubey, tearned Go'i't. Advocate has supported the decision on the ground that since the titioner had faited to notify nature of his possessfon cn the subject land, the order of reversion is justified. -'t''<-"'~";i % '•^''^^h.. i "v s '%j^y -3- v3> (10) Respondents No. 5 to 7 have ateo fited their return and supported the impugned order on the ground that provisiorts of Secticn 170 (B) of the Code is applicabte. It is the contention of the said respondents in the return that the saie deed has not been produced and that no permission was soyght for before alienation of the 'and by Gango and that mere revenue entries will not confer title and that even if the transaction was made prior to the year 1^9, ft v/ould co'/sr Section 170 (B) of the Code. (11) Provision CQntained in 170-B of the Code is extracted hereundsr: tribe vft'Kdt was transferred by frairi.-(1) Every person whe on the date of commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act of 1980) is in possession of agricultural land which belonged to a member of a tribe whteh has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub-Section (6) of Section 165 between the period commencing on the 2 October, 1959 and ending on the date of the commencement of Amendment Act, 1980 shail, within two years of such commencement, notify to the Sub- Divisional Officer in such fonn and in such manner as may be prescribed, all the information as to how he has come in pc^session of such land. (2) IT any person Talte to notify the inTormation as requiretf by sub-sect!on(1) within the period specified therein it shal! be presumed that such person has been in possession of the agricuttura! land without any lavs.'fu! authority and the agricuftural land shatl, on the expiration of the period aforesald revert to the person to ••whom it originally belonged and if that person be dead, to his legal Gram Sabha in the Scheduled area referrecl of Articte 244 of the Constitution finds that a member of an aboriginal tribe, is in land of a Bhumiswami belonging to an (2-A) ITa to in clause (1) any person, i Of :"1;- '^,'\ -/I- aboriginal tribe, withput any lawfut authority, it shall restore the possession of such land to that persons to whom it originally belonged and if that person is dead to hfe tegat hesrs: Provided that "rf the GramSabha fails to restore the possession of such land, t shall refer the matter to the Sub- Divisional Officer, who shati restore the possesslon of such land w'rthin three months from the date of receipt of the reference. (3) On receipt of the information under sub-section (1), the Sub-Divisional Officer shall make such enquiry as may be deemed necessary about all such transactions of transfer and if he finds that the member of aboriginal tribe has been defrauded of his leg'rttmate right he shal! dec'are the transaction null and void and pass an order reversin^ the agricuttural land in the transferor and, if he is dead, in his tegal heirs. l(3) On receipt of the jnformatiQn under sub- secffonfl} the Sub-Divisional Officer sftaff make such enqwry as may be necessa'y abotrt all such fransacffons of transfer and if he fincfs that the member of aboriginat tribe ftas feeen defrsuded of Ns legitiinate nght he shalt the fransacfion nulf and void and- fs,) Where no buiSding or structwe has been OB the agricultwal land prior to smh iinding pass an order revertsng the agricutturat Sand in the iransferor and vf he be dead, inhis lega! hesrs, (b) Wfiere any building or structwe has been erec-te.^ on the agriwniiral tend prior to such Ifnding, he shall fix the price of such iand in accordance with the principfes te;d down for fsxation ofpfice ofland in the Land AcquisitsQn Prowded that where the build'mg or structure has besn erscted aflsr the 1 day of January, 1984 the prowsfons ofcfause (b) above shall nof apply; -5-- / Pfowded further tftaf fixafion ofprice under dause ffc shalt be with reference regfefrafion of tfte case price on the date of ffte Sub-Divisional ra 8 (12) ft is not the case of the respondents No. 5 to 7 that on the date of coming into force of the Code, with effectfrom 02.10.1959, they vi'ers in possession of the land, therefore, the documents Annexure-P/1 S. P12 which are of the year 1954-55 and 1957-58 respectivety becomss important Tor appreciating the fact as to whether the provisions of Section 170(8) of the Code would be attracted in the instant case or not. Annxure-P/1 categoricatiy records that the land has been purehased by Nanda for Rs.160/- and Annexure-P/2 records the name of Nanda as a hoider. Respondents No. 5 to 7 have not produced any documents or Order after the year 1954-55 to demonstrate that in fad the land was never sold by Gango or even if ft was sold, the petitione'-s forefather Nanda came to acquire possession muct*, after the sommencement of the Code. in the case of Rocgx*ia(Xl Vs, Board c< Revenii®(Sup'a). the High Court of M.P. has held thus in the ps and 9 of the report, which is reproduced hereunder: "8. In context of section 170-A of the Code, the Division Bench of this Gourt took the view as under in 1988 RN 16£ (Bahwant Bai v. Collector, Jhabua and others): "The petitioner was undoubtedty sn possession of th< land in question as a tessee, prior to 2.10.59, 'when the code came into Toree, tt was contended on behatf of the respondents that the application under Section 190 of the Code made by the petitioner for conferTal of Bhumis^'ami rights, was wrongly allowed by the Tahsildar as ths petftioner had not acquired the status of an occupancy tenant in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Nathu Prasad v. Ranchhod Prasad and othere (AIR 1970 SC 483). But the question as te whether the applicatlon of the petitioner for conferrat or Bhumiswami rights under , .section 190 of the Code was rightly allowed by the Tahsildar, was not the subject matter for consideration in fy^ '^•^ '% I 1 •^- •? ^- 'i ^ ^' ''%cy -6 '^.y/- the application submitted ynder sedion 170-A of the Code. The only questbn Tor consideration was whether section 170-A 6f the Code was attracted in the instant case. As provided by section 170-Aof the Code, that provisions attracted only when transfers are affected between the period commencing on 2.10.1959 and ending on 2^ November, 1976. -X- -X- -X- 9. In view of the aforesaid position, 1 am satisfied that the case was not entertainable under Section 170-A or 170- B of the Code. Bearing in mind the factual matrix, suffermg from no infirmity and position of Saw, telling no tenebrosity as quoted above, 1 fmd that thte petition deserves to succeed." (13) in view of the material on record and the tegat position settled by the High Court of M.P., this Court is of the opinion that the provisions Section 170(8) of the Code are not attrapted in the present case. Commissioner is not correct in obser/ing that the provisions of Section 170 (B) of the Code will be applicabte even where the transaction been entered into before 02.10.1959. The Commissioner has assigned any reason for amving at such conclusion. Commissioner appears to have teen impressed the fact that pet'rtioners have not been able to produce any order obtai permission for sale of the land. However, sincethe provision ttse!f not applicabte Tor the transactjons prior to 02.10.1959, the question to the requirement of cAstainirg penTtisston would not arise at all. (14) !n the result, the order passed by ttie P/10) is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. has not The % Bira Tras•'-s' TAisbra 1 -