MADAN PRASAD GUPTA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is preferred against order dated 6.12.2006 passed by Board of Revenue dismissing the petitioner's revision against the order passed by the Collector in appeal arising out of order passed by the SDO in proceedings under Section 170-B of the Land Revenue Code, 1959.

(2.) The land in dispute originally belonged to aboriginal tribe Sukhram and Premsai. After Section 170-B was introduced by way of amendment w.e.f. 24.10.1980, a report was received by the SDO, Pathalgaon that present petitioner is in occupation of the land which is otherwise recorded in the name of aboriginal tribe- Sukhram and Premsai. Upon receipt of this information, SDO initiated proceedings under Section 170-B of the Land Revenue Code and issued notice to petitioner-Madan Prasad Gupta. The petitioner came out with an unregistered sale deed and agreement dated 8.9.1983, gave statement before the SDO on 21.10.1994 that he had purchased the property in dispute from one Narsingh S/o Purshottam for consideration of Rs.10,600/- with the consent of original bhumi-swami Sukhram and Premsai who have been given bicycle and Rs.1500/-. He further stated that 12 years before, he constructed the house on the said land. In his statement, he has also stated that he had obtained sanction from Municipality for construction of house and has been paying various taxes to the local bodies. He also stated that he is prepared to pay any amount as difference of the reasonable sale consideration. In his statement, he also stated that in the year 1983, he had taken the land and in 1984, he constructed the house. After making enquiry, the SDO passed an order on 25.3.1996 holding that transaction of sale, without permission of Collector as required under Section 165 (6) of Land Revenue Code, is illegal. It was further recorded that with effect from 26.1.1977, the area where the land was situated was declared as scheduled area and, therefore, even the Collector could not have granted permission after 26.1.1977. It was also recorded that in order to defeat the provision of Section 170-B of the Land Revenue Code, house has been constructed. On such consideration, the SDO declared the transaction void and directed return of land to the aboriginal tribe.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Collector. Vide order dated 6.2.1997, the Collector also dismissed the appeal, rejecting all the five grounds raised to assail legality and validity of the order passed by the SDO. Finally, the petitioner filed revision before the Board of Revenue, the highest revenue Court in the State. The Board of Revenue also dismissed the revision. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court.