DHUMANIYA Vs. HARISINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant has come up in the present second appeal, challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the two Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for declaring the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, ordering reversion of the land to the appellant-defendant u/s 170-B of the M.P. Land Revenue Code as illegal and void, has been decreed.

(2.) THE plaintiff came to the Court for declaration that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 4.4.85 is illegal and void and also prayed for relief of restoration of possession with respect to the agricultural land comprised in Survey No. 140/1 area 1.829 Hectares, and Survey No. 142/2 area 2.508 Hectares on the allegations that the plaintiff's father deceased Sabdalsingh was a Bhumiswami and after his death the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the said suit-land. Plaintiff's father had purchased the said land from Brija, the deceased father of the defendants No. 2 to 5 in lawful manner. The defendants No. 2 to 5 are Rawat by caste and Rawats are not included in the Scheduled Tribe as per the Notification issued under M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. Thus, the provisions contemplated u/s 165 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) are not applicable. It was further alleged that in the list issued under Article 342 of the Constitution, Rawat caste is not included in the Vidisha District in the category of Scheduled Tribe. It was further alleged that Rawat and Sahariya are two different castes. Rawats fall in the general category whereas Sahariya caste is Scheduled Tribe. Inspite of this, the Sub-Divisional Officer had, vide his order dated 4.4.85, under section 170B of the Code, declared the sale to be illegal. Hence, the order passed by the S.D.O. being contrary to law, deserves to be set aside and the possession taken by the defendant during the pendency of the suit, be ordered to be restored.

(3.) THE original defendant No. 2 died and his legal representatives were brought on record. Defendants No. 2 to 5 filed their joint written statement and their defence is common.as that of the State of Madhya Pradesh.