s 'i^ADB^" ' .'*i;., i Q. <[!»'' 1" '*. WTOO, fUI+l-'- 1-'-fl)(n iQi-t-r*- pKBhl h. I-' c'on «1+irl- •|i> U M ^ * o • ^ > s ^- (3. i-^ in' 1a m tB. & ^. g ». P. S> (B, w s1 s (D 1<1 I-' tfl 1 V 1-1 'l ^^ g io 0) O <» s 00 0 O ra ;;ja e (u 10 (B M :(-)• t-' p- I-'. 00) ,& cn :,.il"'i;3 .•."lti! 'i, '^ ";;:IS ;^-,_<- F:)':~ .,->-' ^ iS^s.ii S ^?^^^^^' ns I^ Q^l^f 'h!> ISEl^^i 3 ^i 3- - r"^ =! ff ? suwan Prasad and others Postfor fl2--02-2010 Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge y"aia» ...?.--^(. "y '*•>>. f^ ^^ ^^"fci 1 ^-yi >T nc r>i Petitioner ?r^<^i -i s'bte Shrj..lusticeJPr< K versus Mst. Ambo Bhuwan Prasad and others Shri Sunil Sahu, counsei ft Shri Devendra Patel. c; Shri Surnit Verma, Panei the petitioner. se! for respondents No.1 to 4. Lawyer for the State/respondent No.5. Writ Petltion under Articles 228/227 of the Constitution of !ndi; (Passed on ?.K'<-Februarv,;20- The petitioner herein has chatlenged the legality, vaiidity and propriety of the order dated 18-5-1998 (Annexure P-3) by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Divjsion, Bilaspur in Case No.S/A-23/97-98. 2. The matter pertains to the proceedings initiated under Section 170-B ofthe Chhattisgsrh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (henceforth 'ths Code, 19.59') by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raigarh after receipt of a report from the Patwari. tn the order 30-7-1997 (Annsxurs P-2) passed by the Sub-DMsions! Officsr, it is stated thst ths Eand orlQjnsliv bslonasd to trbai OhsmrB. ths'fethsr oftho Drsssnt petitioner. The said Chamra was dumb and was unable to speak and that ths Isnd In ausstion was bsina cultivatsd bv Radhsshvsrrs Brahmin. According to the Sub-DivisionaI Officer, the present ^ftfifinn^3' rT;?t'rip thi^ ^:t^f^nmssnf In f^f^i!r<s<5 nf ^nriiiirv •2- ffie other ha ••"i ; -i.U^i! oafh fhaf hi ^ -»^= fl l^ ^ •ait H1S f 'hai .,, ^y f4 '^"erMurlidharhaspu^sedfhe- 966 for Rs.2,000/. gfe ofMurfidharhasstatedon Cn']fr4^ 'and frorn Sato-awafi 'r ee'an.Q Dermisoinn *- ""••y p'erm.ission from t^g •i SBaifnn Ti ;;~s ' ^ub-Dh/isioni ~ Plv!vs that the gmoiinf nf ^—: '•"-"• -rt=B.'EV^^j( OF QQf^gj •ved tha( the burcfer onsjderafi 'J7e nm-Wbal. whlch, he has fsifed ^ ^;. '• l!c "as ra"ed to dtecharge and. fh was paid fo fhe tribg! was nn fh^ffl ^ ""'e fac* ?hst fhe nnn^rh-, ^-'°" """' "!er8Tore-in w&w "-"ug' ,ngs a'so .nof infnn-n^^i 11- ^fhorityw-fhfnaperiodnf^l^30 nof lnfom1ed fhe prescnbed ^~" —•ys?<sf3 ?-H3i ^^ ^....- . . ,0. ^)'s/iaSjr^P'i.?l 's^-f ^\ d. "" •-'"-'''^ions of Section l7n-R ,nf e date °fcoming jnfo foree r.r m t ' • u-o u, me co( -Slf *f'n »..„-.^ .. •-- •••w Transact;on was fraurf,, uuui W, t Wifl b8 nr asseryes 'n h. !-l-,s «„..._ .. De presumed and as such ?he said tr^^^ ansaction s®tasicfe. Tho e,,u n,. • . ; ' s'- OUO-I.JiV*%<i/^j ^u-u-visiona? Officer concfuded tha! and fhe land rsvsrts to Konri^ ana vo'd » --""Tira and sjnce ha i= Kfnrfa al; SU£3 i-^H 's c!sad, B reverts fo his leaaf h»,, Amhn fha ,^—-_, .... - " ""'' ":;ye" '1®'1 •-""w, rns presenf pstitioner Uc! Vs! .W ?5fu' ?~t^ '*' 4r i W ^?CI 1 i '^. s j'i-ij The !TOn-triba!s and D^n. 'ui 1 iluS iar Drefprra.-! bsfcre *hB /'^»«-».^- -••-.-.. ^ciwfea an appea ..^ivia ine Co'fecfor Rains-h ,..i._ .. """^" •• '"."yaiii, yyno. v'u a;sm;sset' *ha rshm aPpea! and affirmed fh The non-tribafstesn nrss^ W.Sii-»-.'5.^ ,-;!31t;frgg g rcy;e; ^" - ^-^ 4^ E ^^*i osfore the Comm has been af'owsrf hv +h-, ;- °"-" -y ine 'mpugned order * orcier dated 14.10-1997^ 'roer passed by fte Sub. erts N0.1 (o 4. fheresf^. "sspur Division. wh?ch Thn 1°amed Commfesione, B-lasD had so!d thg prooerfv t ur Divisfon found fha{ Chamr; "•V To Musammat R:,'^,.^ "' '-":!iv"w3n, who Mfas the wife ftrofher for pe snn/ ^•^ ror HS.SOQ^ o. sg^^gg ^ ^^^ his •.^.^•^ 'o .—'ssicnfrom fhe Cofte .-•u-ieuior, Kaiaarh n '. "aigam on 29-8-1968. o- T^ 3- sold the property to Dharnidhar and Murlidhar for Rs.2,000/- vide registered sale-deed dated 7-10-1966. The Commissioner found that since there is no transaction between Konda alias Chamra and Murlidhar, Dharnidhar, the finding by the Sub-Divisional Officer that the amount of consideration has not been paid to tribal Chamra is not correct. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Commissioner ought not to have interfered with the orders passed by the Sub-Di'/isional Officer and the Collector and that the tribal has been defrauded. Learned counsel has urged that once the Commissioner has found that proper enquiry has not been held, he should have remanded the matter for a fresh enquiry, however, the Commissioner has committed an error by setting aside the order without remanding for fresh enquiry. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 and learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.5 have supported the impugned order passed by the Commissioner. 9. I have perused the original records. From the records, it appears that the sale-deed dated 26-3-1 958 was executed by Chamra's mother Dasoda as his guardian by mentioning that since Konda alias Chamra is hard of hearing, she is executing the sale-deed on his behalf. On perusal of the order dated 29-8-1966 passed by the Collector, Raigarh jranting permission to Sakrawati to sel! the property to Murlidhar, it appears that the said order is a cyclostyled order and does not record anyreason forgranting permission. ^ -< 10. From the impugned order by the Commissioner, it would appsar that the above mentioned two important aspects, name'y, exscution of sale-deed dated 26-3-1958 by Konda alias Chamra's mother by mentioning that Chamra is hard of hearing and the order 29-8-196S by the Collector, Raigarh granting permission to sell the land being a c^lostyled order without assigning reason, have not been gone into by the Commissioner. Moreover, the Commissioner, having found that proper enquiry has not been by the Sub-DjvJsiona! Officer, should have remitted the matter back to the prescribed authority for proper enquiry. and by not doing so the Commlssioner has committed an jltega'ity and has not exercised the jurisdiction properly resulting in manifest injustice to the petitioner, who Js a tribal and has been conferred right of revereion of land under a bsnsfic'a! Isciislation. 11. !n the resuit, the impugned order dated 18-5-1998 (Annexure P-3) by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Offlcer (Revenue), Raigarh for holding fresh enquiry and passing frssh orders in lancs with faw. 't is made clear that the Sub-Divisional Officer sha!! ho!d the enquiry without being influenced by any observation made in this order and that the competent authority shai! decide the "latter in accordance wlth the facts and materia! brought on record in course of enquiry. With these observations, the instant writ petition under Art'cles 226 and 227 of ths Constitution of India is allowed. Thsre sha'l be no order as to costs. ; c.i//• . ' Prashant Kumar Misiira •Judge