SITARAM Vs. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER BALOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of the original petitioner Sitaram, are seeking quashment of the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Balod on 30-4-1994 (Annexure A-7), the order passed by the Additional Collector, Durg on 9-1-1995 (Annexure A-9) and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur on 30-3-1996 (Annexure A-10). The original order (Annexure A-7) was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Balod in exercise of powers under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (henceforth 'the Code, 1959') and the said order has been affirmed by the Additional Collector in appeal and by the Additional Commissioner in revision. As a consequence of these orders, the subject lands bearing Khasra No.101/2 area 6 acres and Khasra No. 101/5 area.2.66 acres situated at Village Godri, Patwari Halka No.35, Tahsil Balod, District Durg has been ordered to be reverted to the original tribal owner Sunderlal (respondent No.5), who shall be referred elsewhere in this order as 'the tribal holder'.

(2.) The case of the original petitioner Sitaram is that the subject lands originally belonged to the tribal holder, who sold Khasra No.101/2 to one Bhagiram Gond on 7-4-1972. The said Bhagiram obtained permission for sale of this land to the petitioner as required under Section 165 (6) of the Code, 1959 on 2-9-1974 (Annexure A-2) and thereafter the said Bhagiram executed a sale-deed of Khasra No.101/2 in favour of the petitioner on 4-9-1974. The other land bearing Khasra No.101/5 was purchased by one Hiraman, respondent No.6 herein, who was also a tribe and, thus, there was no requirement for him to seek permission from the Collector under Section 165 (6) of the Code, 1959, however, since the petitioner has extended financial assistance to respondent No.6 Hiraman in purchasing the land of Khasra No.101/5, the petitioner used to cultivate this land also with the consent of Hiraman as mentioned in paragraph 5.5 of the writ petition.

(3.) The tribal holder moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 in which an enquiry was conducted and after recording statements of the witnesses, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), vide his order dated 25-8-1984 (Annexure A-4), found that the transaction in relation to both the khasra numbers are fraudulent transfers inasmuch as the original transactions are Benami and the petitioner Sitaram was in actual cultivating possession. The matter was taken up in appeal by the present petitioner Sitaram along with his brothers and respondent No.6 Hiraman before the Collector, Durg, who passed an order of remand on 17-5-1985 (Annexure A-5) and directed the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) to conduct fresh enquiry and thereafter pass final orders. Against this order of remand, the tribal holder preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur which was dismissed vide order dated 21-11-1986 (Annexure A-6).