Bholaram vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 12-5-2003 (Annexure-P/1), passed by the Additional Collector. Pendra Rod, District Bilaspur in Appeal Case No. 23/A-23/2001-2002 (Bhala Ram v. Raimat Bai). The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner belongs to general category (Bramhin). The land having survey No. 142/2, 155/2 and 185/2 measuring 0.17 acre, 0.68 acre and 0.36 acre, total 1.21 acre land (hereinafter referred to as ''land in dispute'') situated at Village--Deorikhurd, Patwari Circle No. 30, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur was recorded in the name of the petitioner in revenue records.

The respondent No, 4 filed an application u/s 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ''the Code, 1959'') before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). Pendra Road, seeking restoration of possession of the land in dispute in her favour, staling that she had purchased the land in dispute from one Smt. Itwari Bai and the petitioner had transferred that land in the name of the petitioner by playing a fraud It was also stated that the land in dispute was purchased by Smt. Itwari Bai from one Ramgopal Gond.

The application filed by the respondent No. 4 was registered as Case No. 5/A-23/2001-2002. By order dated 15-3-2002 (Annexure P/2) the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pendra Road directed for reverting the land in dispute in favour of the respondent No. 4. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No. 2, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 12-5-2003. Thus, the petitioner has filed this petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would assail the orders passed by the authorities below submitting that the land in dispute was donated by Smt. Itwari Bai w/o Ram Manohar Gupta to the petitioner by a donation deed (Annexure P/3) on 14-1-1988. One Ram Gopal, by caste Raj Gond had filed an application u/s 170-B of the Code, 1959 in regard to the same land in dispute before the respondent No. 3 which was dismissed on 29-7-1998 (Annexure P/4). Thus, the application filed by the respondent No, 4 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pendra Road was not tenable in view of the principle of res judicata. The caste of the respondent No. 4 is Panika (Annexure P/5), which comes under the Other Backward Caste (O.B.C.). In spite of donation deed, the petitioner also got executed registered sale deed in the year 1989 by Smt. Itwari Bai. The petitioner made several complaints to various revenue authorities and also lodged a criminal case u/s 420 of the I.P.C. against the respondent No, 4 stating that she had executed the registered sale deed showing her castes Gond, although she belongs to Panika caste.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would support the order passed by the authorities below.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 provides for reversion of land of members of aboriginal tribe which was transferred by fraud. This Section stipulates that every person who on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act of 1980 was in possession of agricultural land which belonged to a member of a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe between the period 2nd October, 1959 to the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, 1980 shall 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.

The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pendra Road in his order dated 15th March, 2002 held that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and a report in Annexure "E" was called from the Patwari. As on 2-10-1959 the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Prem Singh S/o Ran Sai, Caste Gond. At present the name of Bholaram (petitioner) is recorded in the revenue records and he is in possession. Thus, the land in dispute was transferred from a member of aboriginal caste to the member of general category. Even after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to establish that the transfer of the land in dispute was a legal deal, has failed to do so. The land in dispute was transferred by Itwaria Bai D/o Shivraj Singh, Caste-Gond to Raimat Bai D/o Shivraj Singh, Caste- -Gond by a registered sale deed. Thus, the land in dispute was reverted in the name of the respondent No. 4. The Additional Collector, Pendra Road in his order dated 12-5-2003 has examined the matter in detail and affirmed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pendra Road.

Having examined the facts situation of the case, it is evident that in the year 1959 the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Prem Singh S/o Ran Sai, Caste--Gond. Thus under the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code, 1995 it was a duty of the petitioner to notify to the Sub-Divisional Officer in prescribed manner, submitting all the information as to how he had come in possession of the land in dispute which was recorded in the name of a person who was a member of aboriginal tribe.

It is evident from the order dated 12-5-2003, passed by the Additional Collector that the respondent No. 4 is Scheduled Tribe (Gond) as her father was Shivraj Singh, who belong to caste--Gond. The petitioner has failed to establish that the respondent No. 4 did not belong to scheduled caste community. Per contra, the certificate to the effect that the respondent No. 4 belongs to Panika caste has been obtained by fraud. No attempt was made to establish the case that the respondent No. 4 belongs to Panika caste. The petitioner may take up the matter to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification of the caste of the respondent No, 4 if there is any doubt.

In view of the foregoing, I do not find any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The order dated 12-5-2003 (Annexure P/1) is just and proper and does not warrant interference in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.