AMRITLAL KESHARWANI Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioner has prayed for issue of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 16.2.99, 30.3.98 and 6.10.97 passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur, Additional Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer, respectively, whereby they have passed orders for reversion of the land to the person to whom it originally belonged.

(2.) THE facts lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner belongs to general caste. He purchased an agricultural land admeasuring 0.12 acres in Khasra No. 121 and 0.43 acres in Khasra No. 124 in village Urga from one Siddharth Singh who is a scheduled tribe. The said Siddharth Singh has purchased the land from one Laxman Singh who is also a scheduled tribe. During the life time of Laxman he never raised any objection. The petitioner purchased the property from Siddharth Singh after obtaining due permission as envisaged under section 165(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') from the Additional Collector, Bilaspur. The aforesaid application was registered as Revenue Case No. 371 /A-21111 -72 and permission was granted for sale by order dated 28.9.72. After purchasing the said property he remained in peaceful possession. While the petitioner was in possession an amendment was brought into the Code under section 170B with an intention to facilitate return of property to tribe in those cases where they, had become victim of land grabbing tactics and where fraud has been committed on their legitimate right. As per section 17()B(1) of the Code a person who is in possession of agricultural land which belonged to a member of tribe shall within period of two years from the date of commencement of the Code give information to the Sub-Divisional Officer failing which it would be presumed that there was unauthorised possession and the same would be liable to return to the original owner. It is admitted in the writ petition that the petitioner did not inform the competent authority. Thereafter, the son of Laxman Singh, Kamal Singh, filed an application forming the subject-matter of R.C.No. 41/A-23/96-97 before the Sub-Divisional Officer who is the competent authority. It was pleaded before the Sub-Divisional Officer that Amritlal has purchased the property from Laxman Singh in the name of Siddharth Singh and the petitioner was instrumental in the said purchase. The property was purchased from Siddharth Singh after obtaining permission. It was further pleaded that the petitioner had not informed the competent authority, therefore, he was liable to be evicted from the land in question. The original authority after conducting the enquiry came to hold that it was 'Benami' transaction and that apart there was no information as required under section 170B (2) of the Code. On the basis of the aforesaid finding the competent authority allowed the application and directed the land to be resumed in favour of scheduled tribe, Kanwal Singh. In appeal and revision the petitioner did not meet with success and the findings recorded by the original authority were affirmed by the appellate authorities.

(3.) MR . Manindra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised two fold contention, namely, that there was no finding by the Court of first instance that the transaction was made in a fraudulent manner and the original vendee, namely, Laxman Singh or Siddharth Singh were defrauded of their legitimate right and the secondly that the competent authority has been swayed away as there was no information to the competent authority in regard to the transaction in question. Mr. Jain and Mr. Raizada, learned counsel, have supported the order passed by the comeptent authority.