The presumption of possession without lawful authority under S. 170-B(2) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code Amendment Act, 1980, is rebuttable and does not amount to conclusive proof. A show cause notice and enquiry are necessary even in cases where the presumption arises.

( 1 ) PETITIONERS, three in number, are non-tribals. On the date of commencement of the M. P. Land Revenue Code Amendment Act, 1980, petitioners have been in possession of agricultural land which earlier belonged to members of a tribe declared during the relevant period, to be aboriginal tribe under S. 165 (6) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as Code for short ). Sub-section (1) of S. 170-B of the Code required them to notify within two years of the commencement of the Act, to the S. D. O. in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, the information as to how they had come in possession of such land. Petitioners did not notify the information to the S. D. O. who thereupon asked them about the failure to notify him and to show cause why the lands should not be reverted to the aboriginal vendors. The petitioners submitted statements stating that the lands have been purchased under valid registered sale deeds for adequate consideration and after obtaining sanction from the District Collector. The S. D. O. , however, held that the lands have reverted to the aboriginal tribal vendors on the ground of failure of the petitioners to notify, as required under S. 170-B (1) of the Code and by virtue of the presumption arising under Sub-sec. (2 ). These orders are challenged.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS have paid only one set of court fee. They are required to pay three sets of court fee. This order is subject to payment of deficit Court fee during the course of the day.

( 3 ) WE have already referred to sub-sec. (1) of S. 170-B of the Code which casts a duty on the petitioners to notify the S. D. O. the information as to how they have come in possession of the lands which are in their possession and of which the original owners were members of aboriginal tribe.

( 4 ) SUB-SECTION (2) of S. 170-B of the Code reads as follows :"if any person fails to notify the information as required by sub-sec. (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. Failure to notify information under sub-sec. (1) leads to a presumption that a person has been in possession without lawful authority. The consequence of the presumption being drawn is that the land shall, on the expiry of the period of two years, referred to in sub-sec. (1), revert to the aboriginal tribal vendor to whom it originally belonged and if he is dead, to his legal heirs.

( 5 ) SUB-SECTION (3) reads as follows :" (3 ). On receipt of the information under sub-sec. (1), the Sub-Divisional Officer shall make such enquiry as may be deemed necessary about all such transactions or 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. . . . . . . . . " Though the sub-section commences with the words "on receipt of the information under sub-sec. (1)", it cannot be that no show cause notice and no enquiry are necessary in matters covered by sub-sec. (2 ). This has been clarified by this Court in (Dhirendra Nath Sharma v. State of M. P. , 1985 MPLJ 786. In that case, constitutional validity of Section 170-B was challenged and the challenge was repelled. In doing so, the Court observed in para 14 of the reported judgment as follows:-"it is obvious that in all cases including those in which a presumption arises under sub-sec. (2), a final order contemplated by sub-sec. (3) has to be made and it is only the making of such an order which results in the declaration that the transaction is null and void and the agricultural land revests in the transferor or his legal heirs. Unless such an order is made even in cases in which the presumption under sub-sec. (2) arises, there would be no order