LAIKHAN Vs. MEHATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been brought under Article 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 28.03.2002 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Bastar, District- Jagdalpur, C.G. and the order dated 04.08.2009 passed by the respondent No.8 i.e. the Commissioner Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, C.G.

(2.) The inquiry was initiated under Section 170 (B)(3) of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Sub Divisional Officer, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.11.1980 (Annexure-P/3). The appeal preferred against this order before the Collector was allowed vide order dated 25.02.1992 (Annexure-P/4). A revision was preferred by respondent No.6 before Commissioner, Bastar Division which was disposed vide order dated 01.08.1994 (Annexure-P/5), in which the orders of the Collector and S.D.O. were set aside and the matter was remanded back with direction to make inquiry and pass appropriate order. The Additional Collector, Jagdalpur inquired into the matter and passed the order dated 29.01.1998 (Annexure-P/6) and held that there was nothing mala-fide in the land transaction and the matter was dismissed. Respondent No.1 and 2 then preferred a revision before Commissioner, Bastar which had been disposed off vide order dated 14.09.1999 (Annexure-P/7), by which again the order of Additional Collector dated 29.01.1998 was set aside and direction was issued to make enquiry in accordance with Section 170(B)(3) of C.G.L.R.C. and pass appropriate orders. The matter was then inquired into by the Collector, Bastar and the impugned order had been passed, in which it was held that the transaction was not bonafide. The land in question belonging to the Member of aboriginal tribe, was mortgaged for Rs.3000/-, which was then fraudulently transferred in the name of a nontribal person. The sale transaction was thereby set aside and the order was passed that the name of the respondent No.1 and 2 be entered in the revenue records. The revision preferred before Commissioner, Bastar Division has been dismissed vide order dated 04.08.2009 (Annexure P-2) and the order of Collector was further modified directing the S.D.O. and Tehsildar, Jagdalpur to restore possession of the property in question to respondent No.1 and 2 and 3.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that Section 170(B) (3) of C.G.L.R.C. provides that it shall be the Sub Divisional Officer, who shall make an inquiry about all such transactions or transfer to find out whether the member of an aboriginal tribe has been defrauded by his legitimate right or not. The Collector did not have any authority to make any such inquiry. The Collector and Commissioner both failed to appreciate, that the transaction of a land had taken place with the prior permission and sanction of the Collector as provided under the Code. It raises a presumption in favour of the purchaser, unless, it is proved that permission/sanction granted was unlawful.