Failure to comply with statutory requirements for notifying possession of land belonging to a tribal owner under Section 170-B of the Land Revenue Code can lead to the presumption of fraudulent possession and restoration of the land to the original owner.

Shri Dhirendra Mishra, J. :-

1. The petitioner by the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has impugned the order dated 16.1.1991 passed in Revenue Case N0. 5/ A-23 of 1990-91 by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), respondent No.5 herein, the order dated 31.1.1995 passed in Appeal Case No. 6A123 of 1991-92 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer was dismissed and the order dated 9th February 1998 passed by Additional Commissioner, Raipur, Division-Raipur in Appeal Case No. 206/ A-23/95-96, by which the learned Additional Commissioner treating the aforesaid appeal as revision under Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code, has dismissed the revision of the petitioner.

2. Briefly stated facts necessary for the purpose of this petition are that the disputed land bearing Khasra No. 134/3, area 0.13 acre and Khasra No. 135/2, area 0.72 acre, was recorded in the name of Ramoutinbai, wife of Balbadhdhar (scheduled tribe). On the basis of report dated 11.10.1982 of the Revenue Inspector, Gunderdehi, the Sub Divisional Officer, Durg registered a case under Section 170B of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 and passed an order to restore the possession to the tribal owner with a finding that the transfer was illegal.

3. The petitioner preferred appeal against the above order of Sub Divisional Officer before the Additional Collector, who allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Officer and remanded the matter for enquiry whether appellant Bhuwanlal had filed his return under Section 170-B of the Land Revenue Code within the prescribed period and to decide the matter afresh. The Sub Divisional Officer, accordingly, conducted enquiry after due notice to the petitioner as also to the respondents and passed the impugned order with a finding that the petitioner got executed a sham sale deed dated 31.12.1974 in favour of Shivcharan, s/o Sadhuram Halba whereas the land was, in fact, transferred to the petitioner in the year 1976 itself as in Khasra Panchshala for the year 1975-76 to 1985-86 name of the petitioner is recorded as person in possession over the disputed agriculture land. The sale deed was also executed by Shivcharan in favour of the petitioner in the year 1983. The petitioner also failed to file return in accordance with Section 170-B of the Land Revenue Code (for brevity 'the Code') within the prescribed period and therefore, as per provisions of Section 170-B of the Code, transfer of the land in favour of the petitioner is a fraudulent transfer and the land automatically reverts to aboriginal tribal owner or her successors. With the above findings, the learned Sub Divisional Officer directed the Naib Tehsildar, Gunderdehi to record name of the respondents No.1 & 2 in the revenue papers as Bhumiswami and further directed to put them in possession over the disputed land.

4. The petitioner preferred appeal against the above order before the Additional Collector, Durg and the learned Additional Collector, also dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer.

5. The learned additional Commissioner, Raipur treating the second appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid orders, as revision under Section 50 of the Code rejected the revision with an observation that the tribal owner Ramoutinbai transferred the land to Shivcharan vide registered sale deed dated 31.12.1974, however, possession of the petitioner was recorded in Khasra Panchshala for the year 1976 and the land was subsequently transferred by Shivcharan to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was in possession over the disputed land belonging to the aboriginal tribe when the Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1980 (No. 15 of 1980) came into force and therefore, the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code were applicable.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a bonafide purchaser as he purchased the land from