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

1994 Supreme(MP) 912

U.L.BHAT, RAJEEV GUPTA
ATMARAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. – Respondent


U. L. BHAT, C. J.

( 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,















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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top