SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Chh) 266

2007(2) C.G.L.J. 180
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPL'R
Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
NARAYAN & OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF C.G. & OTHERS
Writ Petition No. 27 of 2002
Decided on : 13-4-2007.

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate, for the Petitioners.
Ms. Deepali Pandey, Panel Lawyer, for the State/ respondent No. 1 to 4.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement for notifying the Sub-Divisional Officer about the possession of agricultural land belonging to an aboriginal tribe and the necessity of show cause notice and enquiry even in cases governed by sub-section (2) of section 170-B of the Code.

Headnote:

Land Revenue Code - Agricultural Land - Section 170-B of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code, 1959, which deals with the reversion of land of members of aboriginal tribe which was transferred by fraud. The court highlighted the requirement for notifying the Sub-Divisional Officer about the possession of agricultural land belonging to an aboriginal tribe and the consequences of failure to do so. The court also emphasized the necessity of show cause notice and enquiry even in cases governed by sub-section (2) of section 170-B of the Code.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged orders dismissing their appeal against the reversion of agricultural land to the original owner, a member of an aboriginal tribe, due to failure to file a reply and appeal within the prescribed time limit.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners failed to comply with the provisions of Section 170-B(1) of the Code, which required notifying the Sub-Divisional Officer about the possession of the agricultural land. The court also held that the delay of 9 days in filing the appeal was not substantial, and the Sub-Divisional Officer's order was vitiated due to the lack of necessary enquiry.

Issues: The issues involved the failure to file a reply and appeal within the prescribed time limit, the requirement for notifying the Sub-Divisional Officer about the possession of agricultural land, and the necessity of show cause notice and enquiry even in cases governed by sub-section (2) of section 170-B of the Code.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory requirement for notifying the Sub-Divisional Officer about the possession of agricultural land belonging to an aboriginal tribe and the necessity of show cause notice and enquiry even in cases governed by sub-section (2) of section 170-B of the Code. The court also held that the delay of 9 days in filing the appeal was not substantial, and the Sub-Divisional Officer's order was vitiated due to the lack of necessary enquiry.

Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for holding proper enquiry under the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code, 1959.

ORDER

1. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners impugn the order dated 3.10.2001 (Annexure P-l), 8.12.2000 (Annexure P-2), 30.3.1995 (Annexure P-3), 24.7.1991 (Annexure P-4) and 3.7.1991 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondents NO.2 to 4, where under the appeal filed against the order dated 24.7.1991 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahasamund was dismissed as being barred by time and review petition filed thereafter was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur.

2. The indisputable facts in nutshell are that the father of the respondent No.5 Late Shri Dalganjan sold the agriculture land bearing Khasra No. 415 admeasuring 2.33 acres in Patwari Halka No. 40/39 to Shri Bharat Ram Aghariya father of the petitioners vide registered sale deed dated 22.4.1963 (Annexure P7).

3. The respondent No.4 i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahasamund issued a show cause notice under the provisions of under Section 170-B of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code, 1959") to the father of the petitioners to file his reply on or before on 24.7.1991. Before issue of show cause notice, the father of the petitioners died and the petitioners did not file any reply as disputed land admeasuring 2.33 acres was distributed amongst the petitioners.

4. The respondent No.4 vide order dated 24.7.1991 (Annexure P-4) held that the detailed enquiry under Sub-section (3) is not necessary as the land owners have not filed any reply to the extent as to how the land came into their possession. The land was reverted back to the original owner Shri Dalganjan.

5. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector under provision of Section 44 of the Code, 1959. The Additional Collector vide order dated 30.3.1995 (Annexure P-3), held that the petition was barred by limitation. There was no application for condo-nation of delay. Thus, the appeal was dismissed. In appeal, the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur confirmed the findings recorded by the Additional Collector in his order dated 30.3.1995 and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 8.12.2000. Against the said order dated 8.12.2000, the petitioners preferred a review petition before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the review petition also holding that there was no error in the order dated 8.12.2000 passed by the Additional Commissioner on the ground that the appeal against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was filed after delay of 61 days, before the Additional Collector which was barred by limitation. Time taken in obtaining the certified copy was 7 days, thus, after deducting 7 days, the petition was filed after 54 days. The period of limitation prescribed under Section 47 of the Code is 45 days from the date of the order. Thus, appeal was barred by time by 9 days.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

7. It is evident that the father of the petitioners died before issue of the show cause notice under the provisions of under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959. There was no notice to the land owners as the land was distributed among the legal heirs of the original purchaser. They are the petitioners in this petition.

8. It is beneficial to quote the provisions of under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 which is as under:-

"[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 Chhattisgarh 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 commending on the 2nd October, 1959 and ending on the date of the commencement of Amendment Act, 1980 shall, with
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top