TOP SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 02.02.2021 passed in WPC-375 of 2021, whereby learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition holding that the observation made by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog Act, 1995 (for short, 'Act of 1995') order dated 15.12.2020 shall not be acted upon by the Tahsildar as a finding under Section 170B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, 'Code of 1959').

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellant has submitted a complaint application with respondent-2 mentioning therein that the land owned by him was possessed by respondents-6 to 18. Appellant made an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer on which a direction was issued to the Tahsildar for submission of its report. Halka Patwari has conducted spot inspection, but has not submitted its report. The application was registered under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act of 1995. The Commission thereafter, enquired into the complaint and have issued recommendation. The Commission observed that the permission obtained under Section 165(6) of Code of 1959 is not from the competent authority. The permission of sale dated 24.03.1984 is not acceptable. Issued further recommendation for returning of the land and correction of the Revenue entries vide its recommendation dated 15.12.2020 (Annexure P1). The recommendation/order of respondent-2 was put to challenge by the private respondents in WPC-375 of 2021 on the grounds mentioned therein. The Writ Petition came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 02.02.2021, which was allowed observing that the recommendation /order dated 15.12.2020 shall not be acted upon as a finding of proof and finding under Section 170B of the Code of 1959. The finding given on merits prima facie not within the authority of the Commission. If proceeding under Section 170B is to be commenced, to be independent based on the facts and evidence produced before the authority. The procedure as prescribed under Section 170B is to be followed.

(3.) We have heard Shri SP Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, learned Dy AG for the State.