ITWARI RAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the validity of the order dated 9-8-1999 of the Additional Commissioner, Raipur, the 2nd respondent herein, in Revision No. 127-A-23 of 1998-99 affirming the order passed by the Collector, Raipur, the 3rd respondent herein, dated 20-7-1996 in Appeal No. 76/A/23 year 1994-95 and the order dated 30-9-1993 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dhamtari, the 4th respondent herein, is assailed.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: According to the petitioner, his father, Butu Teli, by name, under a registered Sale Deed dated 6-8-1963 marked as Annexure P-4 purchased agricultural land comprised in Khasra No. 397, admeasuring 1.21 acres situated in Dhoti Dih, P.C. No. 79, Tehsil Dhamtari, Raipur District from one Kamta, son of Hagaru Gond, the 5th respondent herein, after obtaining permission from the 3rd respondent under Section 165(6) of M.P. (C.G.) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code'), vide order dated 16-7-1963, in Revenue Case No. 584/A-21/1962-63. When the matter stood thus, the 4th respondent initiated proceedings under Section 170-B of the Code against the father of the petitioner in R.C. No. 315/A-23/88-89 on the basis of a report submitted by Halka Patwari. THE 4th respondent despite being informed by the Halka Patwari that Butu Teli had died, without impleading the petitioner as his legal representative, passed order on 30-9-1993 directing restoration of the land to the 5th respondent on the ground that the petitioner did not notify to the 4th respondent the information as to how he came in possession of the subject land. THE petitioner feeling aggrieved by the above order of the 4th respondent preferred an appeal to the 3rd respondent. THE 3rd respondent too accepting the reason assigned by the 4th respondent as valid to restore the subject land in favour of the 5th respondent dismissed the appeal by his order dated 22-7-1996. Even the revision preferred by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent met with the same fate. THE 2nd respondent dismissed the Revision by his order dated 9-8-1999. Hence, this writ petition by the aggrieved petitioner.

(3.) THEREFORE, the question for consideration is whether the opinion of the statutory authorities-respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is valid and whether they were justified in directing restoration of the subject land to the 5th respondent by invoking the fiction enacted under Sub-section (2) of Section 170-B of the Code. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 170-B read as follows: