MAYARAM Vs. SHIV RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Brief and relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved in the present petition are that one Teeju, a tribe, applied for grant of permission to sell a part of agriculture land on the ground that he needs money for purchase of oxen and agriculture equipments. After making an enquiry, the Collector passed an order on 16/7/1973 (Annexure P/5) granting permission to sell a part of the land in favour of Dheeran and Mayaram. During his lifetime, Teeju did not raise any dispute. He died sometimes in the year 1996-97. Next year i.e. in the year 1998, respondent No.6 started raising dispute with regard to permission granted by the Collector way back in the year 1973 for sale of part of agriculture land. The Sub-Divisional Officer vide its order dtd. 30/11/2002 rejected the application holding that sale was made upon due permission. An appeal against the said order was preferred before the Collector who, vide order dtd. 11/8/2003, held that permission granted by the Collector on 17/7/1973 was not bonafide. An order for delivery of possession of the property in dispute in favour of respondent No.6, nephew of Teeju, was passed. This order was challenged before the Board of Revenue by filing a revision petition, which was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the legality and validity of a sale transaction under sale deed dtd. 17/7/73 as also legality of an order passed by the Collector way back on 16/7/73 was challenged by moving application after about 25 years. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the application was based on allegation that the purchaser Dheeran and Mayaram falsely stating their caste as 'Keetu' purchased the property of Teeju and the transaction is in violation of Sec. 170-B of the Land Revenue Code. It is contended that only scope of enquiry was one permissible under Sec. 170-B of the Land Revenue Code to find out whether aboriginal tribe was defrauded of his legitimate right. The Sub-Divisional Officer rejected the application. In the appeal, the Collector, however, reviewed earlier order of grant of permission of sale of land vide order dtd. 16/07/1973 (Annexure P/5). The only enquiry which could be held by the Collector was with regard to the aspect as to whether the tribe was defrauded of his legitimate right and not with regard to the correctness and validity of permission granted in the year 1973. The Board of Revenue has also committed the same illegality, perversity and jurisdictional error.