3’? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No.6218 of 2010 PETlTiONER: Sukhnandan S/o Ganga Ram, aged about 65 years, Caste Patei, R/o Village Baridih, Tahsil & District Korba of Chhattisgarh. Versus RESPONDENTS: Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Near Mangala Chowk, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Revenue Deptt. Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Collector, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 5. ltwarin Bai D/o Late Bhimma, Caste Sonjhara, 6. Amrit Lal S/o Late Daya Ram, Caste Satnami. 7. Uttam S/o Late Daya Ram, Caste Satnami. [Respondent No.5-7, R/o Village Baridih, Tahsil & District Korba of Chhattisgarh]. {Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of lndia} Present: Mr. M.K. Baeg, counsel forthe petitioner. None for respondent No.1. Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.2 to 4. Mr. Abhijit Sarkar, counsel for respondent No.5. Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (27—9—201 1) l l 1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 5~8—2005 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, in l l Revenue Case No.123/A—23/2003-04 whereby the order passed by the l Collector, Korba, dated 31-3-2004 in Revenue Case No.3/A—23/2003—04 l and the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba, l dated 3-11-2003 in Revenue Case No.67/A—23/96-97 have been reversed and by holdingthe caste of respondent No.5 ltwarin Bai as Sonjhara i.e. the castes Sonjhari & Sonjhara are one and same and belonging to aboriginal tribe, the Board of Revenue has directed for return of possession to respondent No.5. 2. i have heard learned counsei for the parties, perused the order impugned, copies of other documents and list of tribes. 3. Sonjhari has been shown in clause 16 of Part XX relating to Chhattisgarh in the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, as Scheduled Tribe, but caste Sonjhara has not mentioned in the aforesaid list. Unless caste Sonjhara is declared as Scheduled Tribe, a person belonging to Sonjhara caste cannot be said as Scheduled Tribe. However, by cryptic order, the Board of Revenue, the Collector and the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) have passed the order impugned. All the revenue authorities have committed jurisdictional error. 4. Consequently, the petition deserves to be allowed and it is hereby allowed. The order dated 5—8~2005 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Revenue Case No.123/A—23/2003-04; the order dated 31-3- 2004 passed by the Collector, Korba in Revenue Case No.3/A—23/2003— O4; and the order dated 3—1 1-2003 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba in Revenue Case No.67/A-23/96-97 are hereby quashed. 5. The case is remitted to the Court of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba for deciding the matter’afresh. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba shall after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, especially relating to caste, pass the order afresh. D(. Parties are directed to remain present before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba on 14-11-2011. Sdl- T.P. Sharma Judge Soma /