A. K. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) BY this petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the pregnability of the order passed by revenue authorities viz. Collector, Commissioner and Board of Revenue whereby the alleged transaction took place between the petitioner and one Galiya whose legal representatives are respondents l (a) to (e), was held to be illegal.

( 2 ) SANS unnecessary details the facts lie in a narrow compass that on 15-2-71 vide registered sale deed, Galiya sold his agriculture land in question (hereinafter referred to as the disputed land) to the petitioner pema. It has not been disputed that the seller as well as the buyer are Adivasis meaning thereby they are the members of aboriginal Tribe as envisaged under Section 170-B of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the "code" ).

( 3 ) IN the year 1970-80 a Committee was formed in which the Revenue Inspector of the Circle was one of the members and that committee examined different cases and ultimately, so far as this case is concerned, the Revenue Inspector gave his report indicating therein that though the land was sold by Galiya to the petitioner-Pema but the land was being possessed by Narwarsingh who is not a member of Aboriginal Tribe. On the basis of the report of the Revenue Inspector, the S. D. O. took cognizance of the matter and initiated the enquiry as contemplated under Section 170-B of the Code. The S. D. O. after holding the enquiry found that the transaction which took place was a valid transaction and is not hit by Section 170-B of the Code and it was further held that narwarsingh is not in possession of the land in question and even if he is in possession, galiya by taking recourse to Section 250 of the Code may obtain possession from him. The order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer is Annexure-P/3.

( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved by the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer the legal representatives of Galiya, as he died during the pendency of the litigation, filed an appeal before the Collector, Jhabua who on 14-7- 86 allowed the appeal holding that the disputed land which has been sold, indeed was a benaml transaction and in fact the land was sold to Narwarsingh who is admittedly not an Aboriginal Farmer. On these reasonings, the transaction which was clothed by the said sale deed was held to be hit by section 170-B of the Code.

( 5 ) THE petitioner Pema thereafter filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner which was rejected vide Ann. P/5 and the order was upheld by the Board of Revenue vide Annexure P/g and in this manner the petitioner Pema has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by Collector, commissioner and the Board of Revenue.

( 6 ) IN this petition Shri Gokhale learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions before me. His first contention is that the findings are based on no evidence, second submission of his is that the authorities had not discussed the evidence and hence, the impugned order passed by them cannot be allowed to remain standing in the eye of law. In nut shell his submissions that the findings rendered by the Revenue Authorities are perverse.

( 7 ) COMBATING the aforesaid submission of Shri Gokhale it has been contended by shri B. K. Gupta learned counsel for the legal representatives of Galiya that Revenue authorities viz. the Collector and Commissioner and ultimately the Board of Revenue which is the final authority of the Revenue courts, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties came to hold that the transaction was a benami transaction and narwarsingh respondent No. 2 is in possession and hence, the Authorities did not err in holding that the transaction was hit by section 170-B of the Code. It has been further contended by Shri Gupta that the copy of the evidence has not been filed by the petitioner in this Court so as to demonstrate that which part of the evidence was not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document