DHAMTARIA @ LAXMAN Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition arises from the order dated 21-1-2002 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, in case No. 113/A-23 year 2000-01 whereunder the order dated 13-6-2001 (Annexure-P/9) passed by the Additional Collector, Gariyaband was set aside and the order dated 24-11-1999 (Annexure-P/8) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Gariyaband (for short "the SDO") was restored with a direction to ensure handing over of the land in question to the legal representatives of the original respondent No. 4. Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is in two folds. Firstly, the land in question was purchased before the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short "the Code") came into existence and, as such, the provisions of Section 170B, which was brought into the statute book by amendment in the year 1980, is not applicable. Secondly, an enquiry as contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 170B of the Code has not been conducted in accordance with the requirement.

(2.) Learned counsel further submits that the land was admittedly purchased prior to 2-10-1959. The SDO has not conducted enquiry, however, on the basis of a report submitted by the Patwari, which contains the deposition of the sellers, who were admittedly aboriginal tribes, came to the conclusion that the land was obtained fraudulently. It was recorded by the SDO that no sale deed was produced to support the contention of the petitioner that the same was purchased properly in accordance with law from the original respondent No. 4. Thus, the entire proceedings is vitiated and deserves to be quashed.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of the original respondent No. 4 submits that the provisions of Section 170B of the Code does not contemplate the period for sale, but only possession. If a person is in possession of land between 2-10-1959 to 24-10-1980 the owner has to justify his possession, if the land ever belonged to the aboriginal tribe. Proper enquiry was conducted, as Patwari after examining the depositions of the persons concerned and others submitted a report. On the basis of the same, the SDO had come to the conclusion that the land in question had come to the possession of the petitioner, not by way of proper sale deed, but fraudulently.