1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1603 of 2010 Order Reserved On: 28.11.2024 Order Delivered On: 27.02.2025 1. Sundari D/o Late Manobodh Kanwar, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bahirkela, Tahsil Gharghoda, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2. Rohit, S/o Late Tulsiram Kanwar, Minor, Represented Through His Guardian And Next Friend Sundari Bai, Petitioner No. 1, R/o Village Bahirkela, Tahsil Gharghoda, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3. Ku. Uma, D/o Late Tulsiram Kanwar, Minor, Represented Through Her Guardian And Next Friend Sundari Bai, Petitioner No. 1, R/o Village Bahirkela, Tahsil Gharghoda, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Dhobiram S/o Late Suphal Kanwar, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bahirkela, Tahsil Gharghoda, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 2. Harihar S/o Late Ratansingh Kalar, R/o Village Amapali, Tahsil Gharghoda, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3. Darshan, S/o Late Ratansingh Kalar, R/o Village Amapali, Tahsil Gharghoda, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4. Santan, S/o Late Ratansingh Kalar, R/o Village Amapali, Tahsil Gharghoda, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5. The Tahsildar, Gharghoda, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 6. The Sub Divisional Officer, Gharghoda, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 7. The Addl. Collector, Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 8. The Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). 9. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Vibhor goverdhan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Rishab Chandra Singh Dev, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of Revenue Case No.2/A-23/2003-04 from the S.D.O., Gharghoda and that of Appeal No.21/A-23/2006- 3 2007 from Addl. Collector, Raigarh and that of Revision case No.454/A-23/2007-08 from Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) and may be pleased to peruse the same. 10.2. This Hon'ble Court further may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 22.6.2009 (Annexure P/8) passed in Revision case No.454/A-23/2007-08 by the learned Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) and the order dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure P/7) passed in Appeal No.21/A-23/2006-2007 by the Addi. Collector, Raigarh and and further be pleased to restore the order dated 25.1.2006 (Annexure P/6) passed by the S.D.O., Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh in Revenue Case No.2/A-23/03- 04. 10.3. Any further or other relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be also issued in the interest of justice alongwith cost of the petition.” 2. The petitioners calls in question the impugned order dated 22.06.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh and are seeking indulgence of this Court for setting aside the said order. 4 3. They are further seeking to challenge order dated 29.12.2006 passed by the Addl. Collector, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh and most humbly praying for restoration of original order passed by the S.D.O., Gharghoda, District-Raigarh, Chhattisgarh in Revenue Case No. 2/A-23/03-04 under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. 4. The petitioners are legal heirs of the late Manobodh, late Manobodh has purchased land in question from the grand father of respondent No. 1, namely, Jagatram vide registered sale deed dated 26.04.1971. No objections from any corner was raised after the purchase even Jagatram has not questioned the execution of sale deed. Late Manobodh enjoyed the fruits of his purchase property in dispute. Neither the vendor nor the vendee has raised any objection, however, after the expiry of both the vendor and vendee, now, the legal heirs of vendor Jagatram raised an objection that the original vendee Manobodh has committed fraud in purchase of property from Jagatram which attracts provisions contained under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. Upon initiation of Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, the SDO dismissed the application filed by legal heirs of Jagatram and has held that provisions contained under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 is not 5 attracting in this case and has accordingly dismissed the case vide order dated 25.01.2006. Being aggrieved by the order of SDO an appeal was preferred before the Collector in which the Collector in a most legal manner has set aside the order of SDO and was directed for reversion of land to the legal heirs of Jagatram holding that while purchasing the said property. Late Jagatram was be frauded by the vendee Manobodh and as such the provisions contained under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 is attracted in this case. 5. The legal heirs of Manobodh being aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector have preferred a revision before the Commissioner Bilaspur Division who in turn hear the case of the petitioners herein while confirming the order passed by the Additional Collector holding that the Additional Collector has rightly passed the order for reverting land in question to the original land holder Tribals in which there is no any illegality and perversity as such to interfere with the matter. 6. The petitioners have preferred this petition while question questioning the order passed by the Commissioner as well as the Additional Collector stating that the impugned orders suffers with illegality and requires for interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6 7. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents opposes the same. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. From the perusal of the documents it seems that some transactions were held between Late Jagatram and Manobodh in respect of land in question, however, since Late Jagatram was a tribal as such his land cannot be transferred without following due process of law while seeking permission in accordance with law from the concerned Additional Collector. If the land is required to be purchased by non-tribals. Though the petitioners have got their name mutated in the revenue records and have also possessed the said land, however, since the transactions is not in accordance with law as such the recording of the name of the petitioners or their father in the revenue records will not be entitled to the petitioners because the father of the petitioners not obtained any order from the concerned Additional Collector for purchase of the land and since permission was not accorded to the forefathers of the petitioners for purchase of land from the tribal the sale itself is not in accordance with law. 10. Since the sale itself is not in accordance with law their possessions if any would be illegal and the same cannot be legalized only on the basis long possession or on the basis of 7 sale deed which has not been written on the basis of permission granted by the petitioners under Section 165 of the of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959. It would be required under the law furnish necessary information within 2 years if such a purchase has been done or possession has been taken over. The sale deed was executed on the name of a tribal, however, the actual possession is of a non tribal which has been admitted by the witnesses also. In such circumstances of the case, the petitioners herein cannot get a relief by furnishing wrong information. One cannot relief against the settled propositions of law. In the land revenue code itself there is provision for seeking permission of land, if the land is being purchased from tribal by non tribal. In this case in order to get read of that the land has been purchased in the name of tribal though actual purchaser of the land are non tribals. 11. Section 165 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1956 reads as under:- “165 Rights of transfer.-(1) Subject to the other provisions of this section and the provision of 1[Section 158 and] Section 168 a Bhumiswami may transfer any interest in his land. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) the right of Bhumiswami belonging to a tribe which has 8 been declared to be an aboriginal tribe by the State Government by a notification in that behalf, for the whole or part of the area to which this Code applies shall- (i) in such areas as are predominately inhabited by aboriginal tribes and from such date as the State Government may, by notification, specify, not be transferred nor it shall be transferable either by way of sale or otherwise or as a consequence of transaction of loan [or will (bequest)) to a person not belonging to such tribe in the area specified in the notification; (ii) in areas other than those specified in the notification under clause (i), not to be transferred or be transferable either by way of sale or otherwise or as a consequence of transaction of loan Hor will (bequest)] to a person not belonging to such tribe without the permission of a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Collector, given for reasons to be recorded in writing 2[:]”. 12. 12. Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1956 reads as under:- “170-B. Reversion of land of members of aboriginal tribe which was transferred by fraud.-(1) Every person who on the date of commencement of the Madhya Pradesh 9 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 which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub-section (6) of Section 165 between the period commencing on the 2nd October, 1959 and ending on the date of the commencement of Amendment Act, 1980 shall, within two years of such commencement, notify to the Sub- Divisional Officer in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, all the information as to how he has come in possession of such land. (2) If any person fails to notify the information as required by sub-section (1) within the period specified therein it shall be presumed that such person has been in possession of the agricultural land without any lawful authority and the agricultural land shall, on the expiration of the period aforesaid revert to the person to who it originally belonged and if that person be dead, to his legal heirs.” 13. Since there is clear cut violation of Section 165 (6) of the Land Revenue Code as well as Section 170B of the Land Revenue Code, the impugned order has rightly been passed by the concerned authorities. The concerned authorities after due procedures of law have given a concurrent findings as such I do 10 not find any illegality, perversity and arbitrariness in the impugned order passed by the concerned authorities. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat