Krishna Kumar Parihar Vs Bhagwan Singh

This petition has been filed by the non-applicant-Krishna Kumar Parihar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 09/09/2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur in Revision Case No.14/A-23/2014-15, whereby the land in question has been

¶19

2

¶20

directed to be restored in favour of the Respondent No.1-Bhagwan Singh, in exercise of the powers provided under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code, 1959”).

¶21

From perusal of the record, it appears that the complaint/grievance was made by the Respondent No.1-Bhagwan Singh before the organization of Mul Niwasi registered at Durg namely, All India Mulnivasi Bahujan Samaj Central Sangh (AIMBSCS) and the said organization in its letter pad, written a letter to the Assistant Director, National Scheduled Tribes Commission, Govt. of India on 29/11/2012 for initiating the proceedings as required under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959. It appears further that based upon such intimation, the Commission had issued notice to the Collector on 30/11/2012 and in pursuance thereof, the said authority has directed the Sub Divisional Officer to hold an inquiry in this regard as required under the said provision.

¶22

In pursuance to the aforesaid direction, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), North Bastar, Kanker has registered the said proceedings as Revenue Case No.04/A-23/2012-2013 and, vide order dated 30/06/2014 (Annexure P-3) observed that the alleged transaction, known as Badlanama (a deed of exchange) was executed on 30/03/1950 between the father of the petitioner with the father of the Respondent No.1-Bhagwan Singh, whereby the part of the land admeasuring 0.016 hectare of Khasra No.933 admeasuring 0.06 hectare situated at Village Badegauri of Tehsil Charama was made and, accordingly observed that the alleged transaction was not a

¶23

3

¶24

fraudulent one and the provisions prescribed under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 would, therefore, be not applicable and despite observing as such regarding in-applicability of the said provision, directed for restoration of the alleged land with an observation that since the possession of non-aboriginal-Krishna Kumar Parihar son of Brijlal, over it, belongs to the ab-original namely, Bhagwan Singh S/o Late Hajariram Teta, the Respondent No.1 herein, therefore, he is entitled to get the possession of the alleged land.

¶25

Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner-Krishna Kumar Parihar before the Collector, North Bastar, Kanker, who vide its order dated 19/05/2015 (Annexure P-4) passed in Revenue Appeal Case No.07/A-23/2013-2014, held that since the alleged transaction was of more than Rs.100/- and since it was not registered, therefore, no right, title or interest would confer upon the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to retain the same and accordingly, the appeal preferred by him was dismissed and being aggrieved, the revision being Revision Case No.14/A23/2014-2015, was preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, who in turn, vide its order impugned dated 09/09/2016 (Annexure P-1) held that since the petitioner has failed to furnish the particulars as required under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959, under what capacity, he came in possession over the land in question, which belongs to the ab-original and, the possession of the petitioner over the alleged land was, thus, held to be unauthorized and, accordingly, the revision preferred by him, was dismissed.

¶26

4

¶27

What is, therefore, reflected from the aforesaid findings of the concerned authorities in a proceeding initiated under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 that all have given their findings on different mode of consideration of the said provision.

¶28

In view of the observation made hereinabove by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, it is, therefore, necessary to examine the said provision, which provides as under :-

¶29

“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 2^nd 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.

¶30

(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 whom it originally belonged and if that person be dead, to his legal heirs.

¶31

(2-A) to (3) -----xxxx-----xxxx------ ”

¶32

A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, would, thus, shows that, if a person is in possession over the land, which has been declared to be an ab-original tribe under sub-section (6) of Section 165 of the Code,

¶33

5

¶34

1959 for the specified period, i.e. between the period commencing on the 2^nd October, 1959 and ending on the date of the commencement of the Amendment Act, 1980, which came into force with effect from 24/10/1980, then only, he is required to notify the requisite information as per the provision prescribed under sub-section (1) of the said provision. However, in the instant matter, the petitioner is found to be in possession over the alleged land since 30/03/1950 when the alleged deed of Badlanama (a deed of exchange) was executed. The petitioner is, thus, in possession over the alleged land much prior to the specified period as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 170-B of the Code, 1959, therefore, no information is required to be notified by him. His possession, therefore, cannot be held to be unauthorized under the said provision and, therefore, the observation made by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, holding the possession of the petitioner over the alleged land is unauthorized, cannot be held to be sustainable in the eye of law.

¶35

Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order impugned dated 09/09/2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, in Revision Case No.14/A-23/2014-15, affirming the orders dated 19/05/2015 (Annexure P-4) and 30/06/2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Collector, North Bastar, Kanker and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), North Bastar, Kanker in Revenue Appeal Case No.07/A23/2013-2014 and Revenue Case No.04/A23/2012-2013 respectively, are hereby set aside.

¶36

No order as to costs.

¶37

SD/- SD/(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

¶38

Tumane

Krishna Kumar Parihar v. Bhagwan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar Parihar v. Bhagwan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ismail Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chain Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Manish Kumar Yadav Vs Union of India

Dudhawa Bandh Ka Prabhavit Kishan Majdoor Kalyan Samiti, Aamgaon Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Seevan Das Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Murti Shukla Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited