JEEVAN Vs. JAINBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dtd. 9/10/2009 (Annexure P/10) passed by the Board of Revenue reviewing its earlier order dtd. 22/7/2008 (Annexure P/5) passed in Revenue Case No. 02/A-23/2002-03 (Smt. Jainbai Vs. Smt. Sukhantinbai and 14 others) wherein the said review application has been allowed quashing the earlier order dtd. 22/7/2008 and and set aside the order passed by the Collector, Kanker on 7/8/2000.

(2.) The brief facts as reflected from records are that husband of petitioner No. 5 was original owner of the agriculture land situated at Khasra No. 464/1 area 7.12 acres and out of that from Khasra No. 64/01 Gha area 0.15 decimal, 464/01 Da area 0.10, Khasra No. 464/01 Ch area 0.30 total 0.60 decimal land had been purchased by the Vyas Prasad Sharma in the name of Jain Bai. It has been contended that the said transaction was committed on fraud, therefore, the petitioner has challenged the said transaction on account of violation of Sec. 170 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short "the Code, 1959"). The Sub-Divisional Officer, Kanker vide order dtd. 13/12/1988 (Annexure P/1) in Revenue Case No. 1/A-23/88-89 (Smt. Rajbati Vs. Vyas Prasad Sharma and others) has allowed the application and set aside the transfer of the land, further directing to return-back the land to husband of applicant Rajbati. Against which Jain Bai has filed appeal before the Additional Collector, Kanker, who vide order dtd. 12/6/1990 (Annexure P/2) in Revenue Appeal Case No. 2/A-23/88-89 has set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer as the land does not fall within the ambit of Sec. 170 (B) of the Code, 1959. Against that Jain Bai has preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue which is registered as Revenue Case No. 123-Five/90 and 147-Five/90. Both Jain Bai and Rajbati have preferred revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide order dtd. 2/6/1992 (Annexure P/3) has remanded the matter for enquiry and further proceeding to the Additional Collector, Kanker.

(3.) The Additional Collector vide order dtd. 7/8/2000 (Annexure P/4) in Revision No. 2/A-23/97-98 has held that the transaction between tribal to tribal is Benami transaction. There was clearly oral and documentary evidence that non-tribals are in possession of the land, therefore, the land was directed to be reverted back to the original tribal and if the original tribal has expired then the land shall be allotted to their legal heirs. Learned Additional Collector has also directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to give possession to the original tribal within 15 days from the date of receipt copy of the order and also directed to submit compliance report. Against that Jain Bai has preferred Revision before the Board of Revenue who vide order dtd. 22/7/2008 (Annexure P/5) has rejected the revision. Learned Board of Revenue while dismissing the revision has recorded its finding that the applicants are unable to establish that the transaction was held between tribal to tribal, therefore, adverse inference was drawn in favour of respondents No. 1 to 7. The Board of Revenue has also recorded its finding that the Collector, Kanker has recorded its finding on the basis of direction given by the Board of Revenue on 2/6/1992, therefore, no ground for interference is made out and accordingly, rejected the revision petition.