Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 406
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
Pooran Singh – Appellant
Versus
Dhaniram (since dead) thr. Legal Heirs and Anr – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 3122 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 34559 of 2016)
Decided on : 14-03-2019
IMPORTANT POINT
It is not open to a civil court to arrive at a conclusion to the contrary of High Court judgment.
Headnote:Administration of justice – Order of Collector affirmed by High Court – Not open to a civil court to arrive at a conclusion to the contrary. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
Beniram Gond, who belonged to a notified Scheduled Tribe, executed a sale deed of the suit property consisting of agricultural land in favour of Dhaniram, a non tribal.
The appellant is Beniram’s son. The respondents are the legal heirs of Dhaniram, who has died.
Proceedings were initiated before the Sub Divisional Officer, Balod [SDO] at the instance of Beniram under Section 170B of the MP Land Revenue Code 1959. The plea was initially rejected by the SDO. However the Collector allowed the Revenue Appeal against the order of the SDO Balod. The Collector directed the reversion of the land in favour of Beniram. The Additional Commissioner Raipur Division dismissed the Appeal filed by Dhaniram. Dhaniram initiated writ proceedings before the High Court.
A learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition.
Possession was restored to Beniram, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant.
After the dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court, Dhaniram filed a suit against the appellant seeking a permanent injunction, possession and a declaration that the order dated of the Collector was null and void. The appellant contested the suit. The suit was rejected. However, in a first appeal the District Judge, Durg set aside the order of the Trial Court and decreed the suit. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the order of the first appellate court in a Second Appeal.
Finding of the Court:
It is not open to a civil court to arrive at a conclusion to the contrary of High Court judgment.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur dated 25 February 2015 in a Second Appeal [No 2 of 1998] under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Beniram Gond, who belonged to a notified Scheduled Tribe, executed a sale deed of the suit property consisting of agricultural land admeasuring 5.36 acres located at Village Naragaon, Tehsil Balod, District Durg in favour of Dhaniram, a non tribal. The sale on 9 October 1964 was for a consideration of Rs.2,400. The suit property is described thus:
“Agricultural Land bearing Survey No. 69/2, Area 1.10 Acre; Survey no. 69/5, Area 1.98 Acre; Survey No. 69/9, Area 0.50 Acre; Survey No. 69/12, Area 0.19 Acre; Survey No. 69/23, Area 0.61 Acre; Survey No.69/15, Area 0.28 Acre; Survey No.69/16, Area 0.29 Acre; Survey No. 172/2, Area 0.41 Acre; Total 8 Surveys comprising 5.35 Acres, Located at Village Naragaon, Tehsil Barod, District Durg, MP now Chhatisgarh”
5. The appellant is Beniram’s son. The respondents are the legal heirs of Dhaniram, who has died.
6. On 24 October, 1980 Section 170B was inserted into the provisions of the MP Land Revenue Code 1959 by MP Act 15 of 1980. Section 170B, insofar as is material, reads as follows:
“170B. Reversion of land of members of aboriginal tribe which was transferred by fraud. -(1) Every person who on the date of commencement of 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 (67) 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 whom it originally belonged and if that person be dead, to his legal heirs.
3(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 person to whom it originally belonged and if that person is dead to his legal heirs :
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 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 revesting the agricultural land in the transferor and, if he is dead, in his legal heirs.”
7. Proceedings were initiated before the Sub Divisional Officer, Balod [SDO] at the instance of Beniram under Section 170B. On 28 July 1984, the plea was initially rejected by the SDO, Balod. However, on 5 June 1985, the Collector, 3 Durg, allowed the Revenue Appeal [No. 11-A/23 year 1984-85 titled as Beniram v Dhaniram]against the order of the SDO Balod. The Collector directed the reversion of the land in favour of Beniram. On 11 June 1986, the Additional Co
