BHUWAN LAL Vs. RUKMANI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner by the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has impugned the order dated 16.1.1991 passed in Revenue Case No. 5/A-23 of 1990-91 by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Respondent No. 5 herein, the order dated 31.1.1995 passed in Appeal Case No. 6A/23 of 1991-92 whereby the appeal prefered by the Petitioner against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer was dismissed and the order dated 9th February 1998 passed by Additional Commissioner, Raipur, Division-Raipur in Appeal Case No. 206/A-23/95-96, by which the learned Additional Commissioner treating the aforesaid appeal as revision under Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code, has dismissed the revision of the Petitioner.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts necessary for the purpose of this petition are that the disputed land bearing Khasra No. 134/3, area 0.13 acre and Kahsra No. 135/2, area 0.72 acre, was recorded in the name of Ramoutinbai, wife of Balbadhdhar (scheduled tribe). On the basis of report dated 11.10.1982 of the Revenue Inspector, Gunderdehi, the Sub Division officer, Durg registered a case under Section 170B of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 and passed an order to restore the possession to the tribal owner with a finding that the transfer was illegal. The Petitioner preferred appeal against the above order of Sub Divisional Officer before the Additional Collector, who allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Officer and remanded the matter for enquiry whether Appellant Bhuwanlal had filed his return under Section 170B of the Land Revenue Code within the prescribed period and to decide the matter afresh. The Sub Division Officer, accordingly, conducted enquiry after due notice to the Petitioner as also to the Respondents and passed the impugned order with a finding that the Petitioner got executed a sham sale deed dated 31.12.1974 in favour of Shivcharan, s/o Sadhuram Halba whereas the Land was, in fact, transferred to the Petitioner in the year 1976 itself as in Khasra Panchashala for the year 1975-76 to 1985-86 name of the Petitioner is recorded as person in possession over the disputed agriculture land. The sale deed was also executed by Shivcharan in favour of the Petitioner in the year 1983. The Petitioner also failed to file return in accordance with Section 170B of the Land Revenue Code (for brevity 'the Code') within the prescribed period and therefore, as per provisions of Section 170B of the Code, transfer of the land in favour of the Petitioner is a fraudulent transfer of the land automatically reverts to aboriginal tribal owner or her successors. With the above findings, the learned Sub Division Officer directed the Naib Tehsildar, Gunderdehi to record name of the Respondents No. 1 & 2 in the revenue papers as Bhumiswami and further directed to put them in possession over the disputed land. The Petitioner preferred appeal against the above order before the Additional Collector, Durg and the learned Additional Collector also dismissed the appeal and updated the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was a bonafide purchaser as he purchased the land from Shivcharan Halba, who sold the land to the Petitioner on 17.1.1983 (Annexure P/2) after seeking due permission from the Collector under Section 165(6) of the Code vide order dated 30.12.1982 (Annexure P/1). The land was transferred by Respondents No. 1 Remoutinbai to Shivcharan Halba, who belongs to aboriginal tribe, by registered sale deed in the year 1974. There is no enquiry as to under what circumstances the Petitioner came into possession in the year 1976, the date on which the land stood transferred in the name of Shivcharan. The Courts below considering that the Petitioner was in possession of the disputed land recorded in the name of tribal and he did not furnish return as required under Section 170B of the Code, have held that the Petitioner purchased the land fraudulently in the name of Shivcharan through sham sale deed though he was de facto purchaser and did not file return within the specified period. The above finding is arrived at without proper enquiry in this regard and therefore, the matter be remanded to the Sub Divisional Officer for conducting fresh enquiry.