The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of complying with the notification requirement under Section 170-B of the Code for persons in possession of agricultural land belonging to members of an Aboriginal Tribe, and the legal implications of failing to do so, leading to a presumption of possession without lawful authority.

The instant petitions, being identical in nature, are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

1. These petitions are directed against the order dated 31-1-1996, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Balod, Distt. Durg (for short 'SDO'), and order dated 21-7-1997, passed by the Additional Collector whereby and where under both the Courts below have directed the petitioner to pay the cost of the suit land as compensation to the respondent No.1, and in default, the land shall be reverted back to respondent No.1 under the provisions of Section 170B of C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code').

2. The brief facts of the case as per petitioner are that, the petitioner purchased the suit land from respondent No.2 vide registered sale-deed. The respondent No.2 had purchased the disputed land from Genduram (Tribal), i.e., respondent No.1 after completing all the formalities as required under Section 165 (6) of the Code. After its purchase, the petitioner constructed a house over the suit land in the year 1978-79 and since then she is living in the house alongwith her family members.

3. The SDO initiated revenue cases. In the said cases, the petitioner was never served with the notice. The appearance of her son and husband in the case cannot be said to be appearance on behalf of the petitioner. The SDO, vide order dated 31-1-1996, passed the order in both the cases whereby it has been directed to the petitioner to pay the cost of the suit land as compensation to the respondent No.1, and in default, the land shall be reverted back to respondent No.1 under the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Additional Collector, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal on 21-7-97, affirming the order passed by the SDO. It was also held in the order that the appeal are not only barred by limitation but have also no merit.

Hence this petition.

5. Shri Surana, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is bona fide purchaser of the suit land. The petitioner purchased the suit land from respondent No.2, who in turn, purchased the same land from respondent No.1 after obtaining permission under Section 165 (6) of the Code, 1959, and therefore, merely on the ground that the petitioner did not notify all the information to the SDO as to how she has come in possession of such land within the period prescribed there for the SDO has passed the order, which is contrary to provisions of Section 170-B of the Act, and also runs counter to the judgments of Division Bench's in cases of Dhirendra Nath Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and another-1 and Atmaram and another Vs. State of MP-2.

1. 1985 MPLJ 786

2. 1995 MPLJ 633

6. Per contra, Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate would submit that undisputedly the petitioner was in possession of the disputed land which belong to member of aboriginal tribe Genduram son of Indal Gond and she failed to notify the SDO within two years of the commencement of the Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1980, as to how she came in possession of such land, and in these circumstances, a presumption has been drawn under sub-section (2) of Section 170-B of the Code that the petitioner is in possession of disputed land without any lawful authority. The Revenue Tribunal passed the impugned order after conducting due enquiry as contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 170-B of the Code after affording due opportunity of hearing.

7. I have heard the Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the orders passed by the Courts below.

8. The relevant facts and pleadings of the respective parties have already been mentioned in detail in the foregoing paragraphs. Before considering the rival submissions made by the parties, it would be appropriate to advert