The court affirmed that the provisions of Section 170-B of the MPLR Code protect the land rights of aboriginal tribes, and Civil Courts lack jurisdiction over matters exclusively under the MPLR Code.

ORDER :

This Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 01.12.2010 passed by SDO (Revenue), District Dindori in Revenue Case No.01(A-23) 2010-11 and order dated 22.05.2012 passed by Additional Collector, Dindori, District Dindori in Appeal No.33, 34, 35, 36 (A-23) 2010-11 by which land of petitioners has been directed to be reverted back to respondent No.7 under the provisions of Section 170B of MPLR Code.

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that earlier Chhutiya Kol was in possession of property in dispute in the year 1929-30. Thereafter, he surrendered his land in favour of the then Malgujar, namely; Bodhiram Teli on account of non-payment of land revenue. According to petitioners, family tree of Bodhiram Teli is as under:

3. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that Bodhiram Teli partitioned the property during his lifetime between his sons Kathorelal and Ramratan and disputed property went to the share of Ramratan. Ramratan during his lifetime carried out family settlement and disputed property went to the share of Nanhi Bai W/o Ramratan. Nanhi Bai executed a will in favour of Ramratan. In his turn Ramratan executed a Will in favour of Parasram and Parasram in his turn alienated the property by four different sale deeds in favour of petitioners. It is submitted that thereafter, Ajuram Kol filed a civil suit for declaration of title and possession of Khasra No.669 area 3.66 and Araji No.668 area 1.40 hectare against Parasram. The said civil suit was instituted in the year 2003, which was registered as Civil Suit No.71A/2003. The said civil suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 16.04.2005 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, District Dindori with a clear finding that Chhutiya Kol had surrendered the land in favour of the then Malgujar on 30.06.1991 and since then name of the then Malgujar, namely Bodhiram Teli was recorded in the revenue record. It was further held that since Chhutiya Kol had surrendered his land in the year 1931 in favour of the then Malgujar, therefore, right of Chhutiya Kol over the land in dispute came to an end. It was further held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by time. It is submitted that after having lost the civil suit, Ajuram filed an application under Section 170-B of MPLR Code. Although names of petitioners were recorded in the revenue records, in spite of that only Parasram was impleaded as sole respondent and petitioners were not impleaded. Parasram was proceeded ex parte and accordingly, SDO (Revenue), District Dindori by order dated 01.12.2010 passed in Revenue Case No.1(A-23) 2010-11 held that the land in dispute is the ancestral land of Ajuram and Parasram, who is the non aboriginal tribe has forcibly taken possession of the same, which is not in accordance with law and accordingly, it was directed that Parasram should revert back the possession of land in dispute to Ajuram. Since Parasram had executed four different sale deeds, accordingly, Smt. Shyama Bai preferred appeal No.34(A-23) 2010/2011, Durgesh Kumar preferred appeal No.36(A-23) 2010/2011, Hiralal preferred appeal No.33(A-23) 2010/2011 and Narmada Prasad preferred appeal No.35(A-23) 2010/2011. By order dated 22.05.2012 passed separately in all four different appeals, it was held that Civil Court had held that initially name of Chhutiya Kol, who is the grandfather of Ajuram was recorded in the revenue record and therefore surrender of the land in favour of the then Malgujar cannot be said to be a valid transfer and thus it was held that the SDO did not commit any mistake by directing the reversion of land back to respondent No.7 Ajuram.

4. Challenging the orders passed by Additional Collector, Dindori, it is submitted by counsel for petitioners that the Civil Court has given a specific finding that Chhutiya Kol had surrendered his land in favour of Bodhiram Teli and therefore, SDO as well as Additional Collector should not have ignored the said finding.