D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against a common order of the Board of Revenue passed in three separate cases between the petitioner and respondents 5, 6, and 7 in proceedings under Section 170b of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short referred to as the 'act' ). It is not disputed that the three parcels of land which were separately in possession of respondents 5, 6 and 7 are recorded as Bhumi Swami Lands in Revenue Records under the Code in the name of petitioner who is a member of Aboriginal Tribe. The three parcels of land were obtained between 1965-1970 by respondents 5, 6 and 7 under a lease on payment of fixed rent per month and for a limited duration. The petitioner approached the Sub Divisional Officer, Durg by three separate applications against respondents 5, 6 and 7 complaining that the respondents 5, 6 and 7 have erected Pakka Structures on the land for running their shops and have neither paid any rent nor are willing to vacate the land. The S. D. O. by separate orders made on 9-4-1984 held that the three respondents mentioned above are in unauthorised possession of the agricultural land belonging to the petitioner as member of Aboriginal tribe and as the lands have been grabbed by the respondents they are liable to be returned to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 170-B (2) of the Code.

( 2 ) AGAINST the orders of the S. D. O. , Durg, respondents 5 to 7 preferred appeals to the Collector, Durg. The Collector Durg upheld the decision of the S. D. O. that the transfers by lease made to the respondents were in violation of the provisions of Section 170-B but further held that as permanent structures have been built on the land, the petitioner would be entitled to compensation to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 170-B (3) of the Code. The Collector, therefore, remanded the matter to the S. D. O. with a direction that compensation for the land payable to the petitioner be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 170b (3) read with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1894.

( 3 ) AGAINST the orders of the Collector, the respondents 3 to 6 preferred appeals to the Additional Commissioner, Raipur. The Additional Commissioner, Raipur by order dated 29-4-1985 took a view that the provision of Section 170b (3) is not attracted in such illegal transfers. He, therefore, set aside the order of remand of the Collector and maintained the order of the S. D. O.

( 4 ) THE respondents 3 to 6 thereafter preferred revisions to Board of Revenue which by the impugned order dated 25-6-1986 partly allowed the revisions by setting aside the order of the Additional Commissioner in second appeal and maintained the order of the Collector dated 22-10-1984 by which the case was remanded to the S. D. O. for determining the quantum of compensation for the three parcels of land in question.

( 5 ) IT may also be mentioned as one of the important facts that during pendency of proceedings under Section 170b before the Authorities under the Code, the petitioner along with others similarly situated persons in possession of land alleged to have been purchased from Aboriginals had filed a writ petition M. P. 2550 of 1984 (Thadamal v. Secretary ) in which the constitution validity of provisions of Section 170b of the Code was challenged. By a common order passed in M. P. 1346 of 1981 (Dhirendra Nath Sharma v. State of M. P.) reported in 1985 MPLJ 786 : (AIR 1986 Madh Pra 122), all the petitions were dismissed and the constitutional validity of Section 170b was upheld. During pendency of those petitions the parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the land in dispute.

( 6 ) SHRI R. K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out serious legal error committed by the Board of Revenue in applying the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 170b and S. 17

Click Here to Read the rest of this document