ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs :-

(A). To quash the impugned orders :-

(i) Order dated 31.8.2018 passed in Ek./Rev./ Chhindwara / Bhu.Raa./2018/230 by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior. (Annexure-P/1).

(ii) Order dated 1.1.2018 passed in Rev. Case No.427/Appeal/2016-17 by the Collector, Chhindwara. (Annexure-P/2) and

(iii) Order dated 18.7.2017 passed in Rev. Case No./02/A-23/2015-16, by the SDO, Chhindwara. (Annexure-P/3) Whereby the sale deed of the petitioner has been declared as null and void in arbitrary and in illegal manner.

(B). Any other relief, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted along with cost of the petition.

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that by registered sale deed dated 13.1.1975 petitioner purchased land bearing Khasra Nos. 296/1, 296/2 and 427 from Pandri. Thereafter, respondents No. 1 and 2 filed an application under section 170 (B) read with section 165 (6) and 7(B) of MPLR Code. The said application was allowed by SDO (Revenue) Chhindwara by order dated 18.7.2017 passed in Revenue Case No. 02/A-23/2015-16 and it was held that the land in dispute originally belonged to Umrao Gond who was member of original tribe and how the name of Pandri was got recorded in the revenue records has not been proved by the petitioner. Accordingly, sale deed executed by Pandri in favour of the petitioner was set-aside and an order of eviction of the petitioner from the land in dispute was passed and it was also directed that names of legal heirs of Parani Bai namely respondents No.1 and 2 be recorded in the revenue records.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal which too was dismissed by the Collector, Chhindwara by order dated 1.1.2018 passed in Revenue Case No.427/Appeal/2016-17. The orders passed by the SDO (Revenue) and Collector, Chhindwara were challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision before the Board of Revenue which was registered as Case No.1/Revision/Chhindwara/LR/2018/2305 which too was dismissed by order dated 31.8.2018.

4. Challenging the orders passed by the Revenue Courts, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that earlier the land was originally held by two separate Jamindars namely Umedchand who was Jamindar of Khasra No. 296 area 13.17 acre and Siddh Gopal who was Jamindar of Khasra No. 427 area 0.32 acre. Thereafter, as per the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, the said land was vested in the State Government by notification dated 27.1.1951.

5. It is further submitted that thereafter, the land was allotted to Pandri by Tahsildar, Chhindwara in Case No. 9/A-19/1966-67. The allotment was done by the competent authority by order dated 22.8.1967 and accordingly, name of Pandri was recorded in the revenue records starting from 1967-68. After the land was purchased by the petitioner, his name was also recorded in the revenue records, which is evident from Khasra Panchsala which has been filed as Annexure-P/17. Thus, it is submitted that the land never belonged to a member of original tribe and thus, there is no violation of sections 165 (6) and 170 (B) of MPLR Code and thus, the Revenue Courts have wrongly set aside the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner by Pandri. However, it is fairly conceded by counsel for petitioner that the allotment proceedings which have been filed as Annexure-P/15 which started from order dated 31.12.1967 and ended with allotment of the land in dispute to Pandri was never placed before the Revenue authorities and for the first time, it has been placed before the High Court and thus, it is submitted that the orders passed by the Revenue Courts thereby holding that the petitioner has failed to prove ownership of Pandri is erroneous and thus, it is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, p