ASHOK KUMAR DUBEY Vs. PARVATI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.6.1992 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer under section 170-B of the M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) directing reversion of land situated in Khasra No.33 area 5.93 acres to its original owner i.e. the legal heirs of Sukhlal. The order dated 15.12.1995 passed by the Additional Collector in appeal and 7.1.2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner in revision declining to interfere in the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 25.6.1992 have also been challenged.

(2.) The material facts are that one Sukhlal was the original owner of the land situated in Khasra No.33 area 5.93 acres. There were certain outstanding dues against Sukhlal and for the recovery of which his land was being auctioned. The petitioner was intending to purchase the said land. Since the land belong to tribal therefore an application under section 165 of the Code was made and the Collector passed the order dated 21.4.1969 (Annexure-P/1) under section 165 of the Code granting permission to sell the land. There was some ambiguity in the order of Collector as regards land for which permission was granted. In the earlier part of the order of the Collector Khasra No.33 was mentioned whereas in the later part Khasra No.252/2 was mentioned. Thereafter, sale deed dated 8.5.1969 was executed by Sukhlal in favour of the petitioner alienating Khasra No.33 area 5.93 acres.

(3.) A dispute arose in respect of Khasra number for which the permission was granted by Annexure-P/1. Sub Divisional Officer on receiving the information from Patwari about the alleged illegal transfer of the land of the tribal, by order dated 17.1.1982, initiated proceedings under section 170-B for violating the provisions of section 165(6) of the Code and issued notice to the petitioner. In these proceedings record of the Collector in Case No. 95 (A-21) 68-69 was called for examination. The Sub Divisional Officer dropped the proceedings under section 170-B of the Code by order dated 28.12.83 by recording that in the first part of the order dated 21.4.1969 correction was done and Khasra No.33 area 5.93 was recorded in place in Khasra No.252/2 but in the tenth line of the order dated 21.4.1969 correction was not done and by the typographical error Khasra No.252/2 area 5.92 remained, therefore, the sale made by Sukhlal was not an illegal sale. With these findings, the Sub Divisional Officer closed the case under section 170-B of the Code.