iii'Kiiijlii^isg& </ \y IN 'mE HIGH COURT OF JCTDICATURE ATsJABALPUR (MP) °s 1<RIT PETITIOH HO.'^lto ) OF 1998. WRIT PETITION TiNDER ART. 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDTA7 —" PETmSNER s INDRA NATH 3/0 JHAGRU RAI4 Caste-Nagwaashi, R/o Village-Eaikera TehcSltapur, Distt.Sarguja (MP) VBRSUS RESPONDENTS 5 2. 3, 5 1; 2s 3; PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER P&RTICUI.ARS OF THE RESPONDEHTS Tbe State of H.P. through- Secretary ,Revenue Bepartment.Bhopal. The Sub-Divlsional Officer, Revenue.Ambikapur Dj.stt.Sargaja(HP) Commissloner Bllaspar Sivlsion, Bilaspur (M.P.) 4. ^^-ieSQSs—SasS/^-Sa.'^eo—Daw, — '<Caej.fi-£ai»ilEa—-' Arjnci flbottfe-GQ years, ^-A/flLJZaAlagc-Railecra, ToiarafrfeapBff-, <El&t^-SaEgu^a—^>f»P.) As raentioned above. As mentioned above. PARTICUIARS OP THE ORDER AGAINST i-CIICH TEiE PETITION IS ISSD-Es Tbe pcesent petition is made against the impugned order dt. 16.2.98 passed by the Resp.No.3 In Its Sevis.i.onal jarisdlction -ander the provisions of tbe M.P.Land Eeveaue Code 1959, herein after referred as the Code, by which he has raost .lllegally set-aside tbe order of tbe Collector passed in his appellate jurisdietlOR u/s 170-B of the Code reversing the order passed by the Resp.No.2 who bas held that the petitioner, wbo adnu.ttedly .../2/ !s.¥| 1:3^^ M9 :;'^S^^'l^i^ B>~.; 4»X Kesh'.rar iBa8» S/o» tiefcra Sas, aged ab»»fc45 yeascs» 8, Baleshwar Oas, S/o» Aehara^s .agsd about 40 years* ? C'., son.ali» ya/-o«'ii^u?a das ^ '- Kaushalays .s»/® Roop S ^Jeatea S/o» Roop Das aged about \3~y»afs imauE-) tAr®).^»his aotlier tt. KaushXaya* »1 E/o, Vill- RaJ&.sz-a. Teh-SAfeapur. 4s'fett- Sarguja. . HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ PetitionNo.2161 of 1998 Petitioner Respondents versus Indra Nath The State of M.P. (now Chhattisgarh) and others Present: Shri S.R.Sinha, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents No.1 to 3. Dr. N.K.Shukla, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ritu Mishra, counsel for respondents No.4(A) to (E). Writ Petition_underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India ORAL ORDER \th (Passedon 9m September, 2010) Heard. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur on 16-2-1998 (Annexure P-8) altowing the revision preferred by the original respondent No.4 Lohra Das. By the said revisional order, it has been hetd that the petitioner is not a member of aboriginal tribe, therefore, provisions contained iri Section 170-B ofthe Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (henceforth 'the Code') would not be attracted in the present case and, thus, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 17-7-1995 (Annexure P-2) is proper and the appetlate order passed by the Additional Collector is set aside. ./^ IB <?c:? 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner's forefather belonged to Nagwanshi Gond community. In the revenue records, name of one Sharif Khan was allegedly mentioned on the date of commencement of the Code, i.e., 2-10-1959. The original respondent No.4 Lotira Das purchased the land from Sharif Khan sometimes in the year 1964. An application was moved by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambikapur under Section 170-B of the Code, which was dedded on 17-7-1995 (Annexure P-2). It was held by the Sub-Divisional Officer that the transaction is prior to the date on which the Code came into force, i.e., prior to 2-10-1959, therefore, provisions of Section 170-B of the Code are not applicable. Though the records are not available yet from the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, it would appear that the Sub-Divisional Officer has considered the reply filed by Lohra Das and the arguments of the learned counsel and the matter was disposed of by a one-page order. This order was set aside by the Collector by its order dated 12-3-1997 (wrongly mentioned as 12-5-199^). The Collector directed reversal of land in favour of the tribal-holder, i.e., the petitioner except an area 0.002 hectare on which the original respondent No.4 Lohra Das has constructed a house. 4. The original respondent No.4 Lohra Das preferreda revision before the Commissioner, which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 16-2-1998 (Annexure P-8). In this order also, the merits of the case have not been dealt with and the revision was allowed only on the ground that the petitioner being a Nagwanshi Gond, is ^ f ^ fti «K not a member of Gond tribal community, therefore, provisions of Section 170-B ofthe Code are not attracted. 5. On perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petition and the return, it would appear that Court of first instance, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Officer has failed to enquire the matter by directing the parties to submit the records and lead evidence. The material part of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is typed only in a single page. The Commissioner has also not examined the merits of the case and has allowed the revision preferred by the original respondent No.4 Lohra Das on technical grounds. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner belongs to Nagwanshi Gond community, which is a sub-caste of Gond and is notified as an aboriginal tribe under Section 165(6)0fthe Code vide gazette notification dated 25- 11-1960 published in M.P. Rajpatra. Thus, the application under Section 170-B of the Code filed by the petitioner was maintainable. 6. Since the Sub-Divisional Officer has not properly enquired the matter, therefore, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur on 16-2-1998 (Annexure P-8), the matter is remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ambikapur for holding an enquiry afresh and take a decision in the matter after giving opportunity to both the parties to present their respective cases and documents. The Sub-Divisional Officer shall take a decision in accordance with law within a period of isix months from the date of receipt of this order. --,— ''<-' iiiin ^ 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession ofthe suit land. 8. During pendency of the enquiry before the Sub-Divisional Officer, the status quo with regard to the possession over the suit land shall be maintained. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer in terms of paragraph 6 of thisorder. i . Sd//-' • ; Prashant Kumar MisSira Judge Gopal !^;'lli l-;