1 2025:CGHC:1165 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP(227) No. 743 of 2014 • Nawal Singh S/o Khushal Singh, Aged About 60 Years, Caste-Gond, R/o Village Barpalli, Tahsil Kota, Police Station-Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Additional Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5. Ahilya Bai W/o Late Ram Singh R/o Village Khongashara Tahsil Kota, Police Station, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6. Santosh Kumar S/o Ram Singh, R/o Village Khongashara Tahsil Kota, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7. Pyarelal S/o Sant Ram, Caste- Gond, R/o Village Khongashara, Tahsil Kota, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4/State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer For respondents No. 5 and 6 : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For respondent No. 7 : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08/01/2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in Appeal Case No. 29/A-23/2013-14 dated 27.08.2014 and the order passed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 in Appeal Case No. 04/A-23/2004-05 dated 27.02.2007, whereby the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Kota [for short ‘SDO(R)] under provisions of Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘Code 1959) was set aside and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The facts of the present case are that late Raisingh was the owner of Survey No. 346/1 admeasuring 1.215 hectares, situated at Village Konchara, Patwari Circle No. 3, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur. A sale deed was executed by late Raisingh in favour of the petitioner on 03.02.1990 vide Annexure P/3. The SDO(R) issued a notice to the petitioner to demonstrate how he got possession of the subject land. A proceeding under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 was initiated by the SDO(R), Kota and after the completion of the proceedings, it was found by the authority that there was a transaction between the tribes, therefore, there was no need to obtain permission from the competent authority according to provisions of Section 165 (6) of the Code, 1959 vide order dated 26.07.1999 and the transaction is not hit by Section 170-B of the Code, 1959. Late Raisingh preferred an appeal against the order dated 26.07.1999 before the Collector. The matter was transferred to the Additional Collector and the said authority vide order dated 15.09.2003 declared the transaction null and void being the outcome of fraud and the matter was remitted back to the SDO(R) for further proceeding. 3. The SDO(R) pursuant to the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 15.09.2003 initiated a fresh proceeding under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 and passed an order in favour of the petitioner on 04.10.2004. The legal representatives of late Raisingh preferred an 3 appeal before the Collector which was allowed vide order dated 27.02.2007 on the ground that the sale deed / transaction between the petitioner and late Raisingh was already declared null and void being the outcome of fraud vide order dated 15.09.2003, therefore, there was no occasion for SDO(R) to initiate a fresh proceeding. The petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Commissioner, Division Bilaspur and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 27.08.2014. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there was a transaction between the tribes. He would contend that the petitioner is the bonafide purchaser and a registered sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 03.02.1990. It is further contended that there was no need to obtain permission as per provisions of Section 165 (6) of the Code, 1959 as the transaction between the tribes. He would further contend that initially the order was passed in favour of the petitioner by the SDO(R) and in appeal, the matter was remitted back to the SDO(R) and vide order dated 04.10.2004 again an order was passed in favour of the petitioner. He would submit that the Additional Collector as well as the Commissioner committed an error of law in holding that the transaction was the outcome of fraud. He would further contend that as the matter was remitted back by the Additional Collector to the SDO(R), therefore, the said authority rightly exercised its power. He would pray to set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 27.02.2007 and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 27.08.2014. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that there was a transaction between tribes, therefore, the provisions of Section 170-B 4 of the Code, 1959 would attract and the petitioner was required to take appropriate permission according to the provisions of Section 165 (6) of the Code, 1959. They would further contend that initially, an order was passed in favour of the petitioner by the SDO® on 26.07.1999, but thereafter, an appeal was preferred by late Raisingh which was allowed vide order dated 15.09.2003 with categorical finding whereby the transaction dated 03.02.1990 was declared null and void being the outcome of fraud. They contended that the matter was remitted back for limited purposes to proceed further. They would further contend that the SDO(R) exceeded its jurisdiction by initiating a fresh proceeding under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959. They would also contend that the petitioner failed to challenge the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 15.09.2003 and it attained finality. They would also submit that the Additional Collector vide order dated 27.02.2007 and the Commissioner vide order dated 27.08.2014 have recorded concurrent findings against the petitioner and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on the record. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner and the late Raisingh both are members of the scheduled tribes. A sale deed was executed by late Raisingh in favour of Nawal Singh on 03.02.1990. Later on, a complaint was made by late Raisingh before the Collector as the subject land was within the possession of a non-tribe. The District Collector directed the SDO(R) to conduct an enquiry and the SDO(R) issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 were initiated and finally, it was held that Section 170-B of the 5 Code, 1959 would not attract as there was a transaction between the tribes. An appeal was preferred by late Raisingh before the Additional Collector which was allowed vide order dated 15.09.2003. In the concluding para, the appellate authority has held that the transaction was the outcome of fraud and declared the sale deed null and void and the matter was remitted back to the SDO(R) to proceed further. The SDO(R) initiated a proceeding under Section 170-B and passed an order in favour of the petitioner on 04.10.2004. The Collector as well as the Commissioner vide orders dated 27.02.2007 and 27.08.2014 have concurrently held that the order passed by the SDO(R) is bad-in-law. 8. Section 170-B of the Code 1959 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 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 persons 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. 1[(2-A) If a Gram Sabha in the Scheduled area referred to in clause (1) of Article 244 of the Constitution finds that any person, other than a member of an aboriginal tribe, is in possession of any land of a Bhumiswami belonging to an aboriginal tribe, without any lawful authority, it shall restore the possession of such land to that persons to whom it originally belonged and if that person is dead to his legal heirs : 6 Provided that if the Gram Sabha fails to restore the possession of such land, it shall refer the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer, who shall restore the possession of such land within three months from the date of receipt of the reference.] (3) On receipt of the information under sub-section (1), the Sub-Divisional Officer shall make such enquiry as may be deemed necessary about all such transactions of transfer and if he finds that the member of aboriginal tribe has been defrauded of his legitimate right he shall declare the transaction null and void and pass an order reverting the agricultural land in the transferer and, if he is dead, in his legal heirs.] 1[(3) On receipt of the information under sub-section (1) the Sub-Divisional Officer shall make such enquiry as may be necessary about all such transactions of transfer and if he finds that the member of aboriginal tribe has been defrauded of his legitimate right he shall declare the transaction null and void and- (a) Where no building or structure has been erected on the agricultural land prior to such finding pass an order revesting the agricultural land in the transferer and if he be dead, in his legal heirs, (b) Where any building or structure has been erected on the agricultural land prior to such finding, he shall fix the price of such land in accordance with the principles laid down for fixation of price of land in the 2 [Right to Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No. 30 of 2013)] and order the person referred to in sub-section (1) to pay to the transferer the difference, if any, between the price so fixed and the price actually paid to the transferer : Provided that where the building or structure has been erected after the 1st day of January, 1984 the provisions of clause (b) above shall not apply: Provided further that fixation of price under clause (b) shall be with reference to the price on the date of registration of the case before the Sub- Divisional Officer.]” 9. The opening line of Section 170-B (1) says that “every person who on the date of commencement of Land Revenue Code 1980 is in possession of agricultural land” – meaning thereby every person includes a member of aboriginal tribe also. 7 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar issue in the matter of Bhaiji Vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Thandla and Others, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 692 in para- 8 held as under:- “8. It is well known that some of the aboriginal tribes are nomadic and some indulge in crimes traditionally and historically. The purpose of settling land with the tribals mostly which is done at very concessional rates and at times even without involving an obligation to pay the land revenue, is so done with a view to see that the aboriginals settle at one place abandoning nomadism and picking up tilling the soil as their vocation by settling at one place and earning livelihood by labour and toil. It is also well known that creamy layers have developed and even as amongst socially unprivileged some have acquired affluence. An affluent shrewd tribal may indulge in exploiting his fellow beings. Possibility cannot be ruled out where a non-tribal may manage to have land transferred apparently but not in reality in the name of a tribal and taking advantage of his status, affluence or any other means, conferring him with capacity to exploit, may till the land to his own advantage depriving the aboriginal tribal from the benefits of the land settled by the State with him. All such cases are taken care of by Section 170-B. The purpose of enacting Section 170-B of the Code is very wide. The object sought to be achieved, as its drafting indicates, is to gather and make available all statistics with the State officials so as to find out how much land belonging to aboriginal tribals is in possession of anyone to whom it does not belong as on the cut-off date. The information having been collected, the enquiry under sub- section (3) shall be directed towards finding out the nature of transaction resulting in transfer of land – whether such transaction of transfer has resulted in the aboriginal tribal having been defrauded of his legitimate right in the land. Sub- sections (1), (2) and (3), as enacted in 1980, have to be read as part of one whole scheme. If the submission of Shri Gambhir is correct then the object of enquiry under sub-section (3) would have been to find out if such transaction of transfer has resulted in an aboriginal tribal having been defrauded of his legitimate right by a person not belonging to an aboriginal tribe. But that is not so. Nowhere in the entire scheme of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 170-B, as 8 enacted in 1980, there is the least indication of confining the applicability of the provision to such transactions of transfer as were entered into by a member of an aboriginal tribe in favour of a member not belonging to an aboriginal tirbe. No exception has been enacted by the legislature so as to exclude from the purview of Section 170-B transactions of transfer between two persons both of whom are members of aboriginal tribes. Had it been so, the legislature would have specifically said so. The language of the section as drafted in 1980 is clear and unambiguous and does not admit of any doubt so far as this aspect is concerned.” Thus, from a bare reading of provisions of Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is apparent that Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 would attract in a transaction between members of the tribe. 11. Initially, an order was passed by the SDO(R) in favour of the petitioner on 26.07.1999. In appeal, the Additional Collector set aside the order passed by the SDO(R) and recorded a categorical finding that the transaction between late Raisingh and the petitioner was the outcome of fraud and the sale deed was declared null and void. The matter was remitted back to proceed further. Actually, the SDO(R) was directed to act in accordance with the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 for the reversion of land to late Raisingh, but the SDO(R) misconceived the order and initiated a fresh proceeding under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 and thus, the authority concerned exceeded its jurisdiction. The order passed by the Additional Collector dated 15.09.2003 was never challenged by the petitioner and it attained finality. At present also, there is a concurrent finding recorded by the Additional Collector dated 27.02.2007 and the Commissioner dated 9 27.08.2014, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the Additional Collector and the Commissioner. 12. Consequently, the petition filed by the petitioner fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti