SIYARAM Vs. DALLA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 6. 11. 2006, annexure P/6, passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner and affirming the order of the Additional Collector dated 28. 12. 1996 and the Sub Divisional Officer dated 31. 1. 1996.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that they had purchased a house built on the land situated at Patwari Halka no. 65 Tahsil Pushprajgarh, district Shahdol, having an area of 0. 06 decimal from Darbar Singh, father of the respondents who had executed a document of sale on 19. 12. 1979 in their favour. The land was recorded as Abadi land. Since then the petitioners are continuously living in the said house. After the death of Darbar Singh at the instance of the respondents proceeding was initiated under section 170-B of the Land Revenue Code (for short 'the Code')on the ground that the land originally belong to a member of aboriginal Tribe. The petitioners appeared before the S. D. O. and the Sub Divisional Officer passed the order dated 31. 1. 1996 holding that in terms of the provisions of 170-B (1) of the Code, the petitioners had failed to inform the Sub Divisional Officer as to how they came in possession of the disputed land. The S. D. O. issued a direction for restoration of possession of the land to the respondents. Appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Additional Collector was dismissed by order dated 28. 12. 1996, against which the petitioners preferred revision before the commissioner, who dismissed the revision petition by order dated 6. 11. 2006. Aggrieved with these orders, petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are bonafide purchasers. The Sub Divisional Officer has passed the order without conducting any inquiry and without calling for the report as required by section 170-B of the Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the house is constructed on the land in question, therefore, provisions of section 170-B (3) (b) should be invoked in the matter and that the land in question is Abadi land, therefore, the provisions of section 170-B would not be attracted and that the order passed by the original as well as appellate authority are cryptic orders, which cannot be sustained.