mm‘mm‘m Wamd‘wm %WW SI&E 3mm; HON'BLE S'IICE DHIR DRA 5HRA Wiw (Petition U/A‘ 1:27 of the Constitu'rion 0f India) 6mm Panchayaf Bifangipali, fhrough Surpanch— Dhan Rum Jagaf, 5/0 Punit Ram Jagaf, aged about 37 wears, R/o Village—Bifangipali, Tahsii—Basm, Disfr icf Mahasamund (C.6.) Vs 1. iday Singh (Died), Parikshif. S/o Late Hriday ingh, aged abouf 38 years, R/a Viilage— hafhori, presenily residing a'r Viilage- Ansula, hsil—Basna, Disfr-ic’r Mahasamund (6.6.) diTionaI Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, is‘irici Raipur (6.6.) a‘re of Chhaffisgarh, Through CoHecfor, hasamund, Disfricf (C.6.) b Divisional Officer, Somipaii, Distric‘r hasamund, (6.6) PETITIONER/ Non-applicant RESVONDWT/ Applicam 14. 07‘ 2008 Mr. Sun By +his the pe‘l'ifioner passed by the il Sahu, Advo Te for The petitioner. I , P.L. for 'ihe respondenf—Sfafe. pe‘rifion un gr Article 227 of 1he Consfifufion of India The order dated 4.5.2002 (Annexure P-l) Addifionai C mmissioner, Roipur Division, Roipur whereby has impugn Wm “ea 200 mm (We) Officer, Soraipoli wi'ih o direc-l'ion To conducf further/wiry on a d f a u a M <1 9n uppiicafion under- Se Tion 170-8 of 1'he Land Revenue Code, 1959 before ‘rhe Sub Divisi ml Officer, Suraipali for resfom‘rion of possession of fhe dispu ed land on fhe ground fhaf Innd in question belongs 'ro a person of boriginal tribe and the some was transferred without permission. Th Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 5.7.1999 set aside the ransfer and directed to record the name of respondent Hridya Singh in the revenue records on the ground that the transfer was effected in vioiation of Section 165 (6) of the Land Revenue Code, 1959. owever, allowing the oppeai of the petitioner herein the Collector re itted the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer with a direction to conduct enquiry afresh. Respondent Hridya Singh preferred a revision ag inst the order of the Commissioner, which was allowed by the impugne order and the order of the Collector was set aside and the order of Sub Divisional Officer was restored. It was further directed that respondent Hridya Singh be restored the possession of the dispu d property Within a period of seveLd/ay’s WIm m 200 ainéw was? (We) ammo—rm . Emuf‘s'rim mw$axg§$mfgfnm V . l if: g. 7i ’e Briefly stated fac of the case are that one Smt. Dasmeth Bai, a lady belonging to ab riginal tribe, executed a gift deed dated 6.5.1963 in favour of m Panchayat Bitongipali With respect to the ‘3‘“ land admeasuring 0.626 ectare. Respondent Hridya Singh preferred From perusal of fhe orders passed by The courfs below it is eviden‘r maf 1he property quesfion was recorded in 1'he name of said Smf. Ddgmefh Bai, who is un ispu'redly an aboriginal ‘h'ibe. It is also no? in dispute Thai- by an unreg s'rered gif‘r deed dafed 6.5.1963 ‘H'Ie said 5m. Dasmeih Bai had ferred 'rhe land f0 fhe pe‘l'ifioner Gram Panchaya'r and permission as coniempla‘l'ed under Secfion 165 (6) of ‘ihe Land Revenue Code, 1959 not ob‘lained before effeciing fhe gif'r deed. No dispufe was raise by 1'he pefi‘l’ioner panchayaf Thai“ 'ihe said Hridya Singh is no‘l' fhe lega heir of The deceased Sm‘r. Dasme'ih Bai. In ‘l'hese circumsfa in fhe considered opinion of ihis Court, there was no necessity of y enquiry, as directed by the Coilector vide order dated 24.4.2000, an therefore, there is no illegality, infirmity or jurisdiction error com itted by the respondent No.2-Additional in passing the of writ jurisdiction. In the result, the pe ition has no substance, the same desery/es dingly hereby dismissed in iimine. ' s : 5w. , Dhirendra Mishra l Judge Commissioner impugned order which warrants interference in the exerci to be dismissed and it is ac i 1 s n , r a Wm W200 mus—$(Ws) WWW WWW masts-vim v g» mummwtfsetd‘agm mwm