Judgment ( 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. ( 4. ( 4. ) LEARNED counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 to 10 submitted that the alleged sale was without obtaining permission under section 165 (6) of the Code, therefore, the transaction is bad in law and the courts below have not committed any error in invoking the provisions of section 170-B of the Code and directing restoration of possession to the respondents. ( 5. ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 6. ) SECTION 170-B of the Code provides for reversion of land of members of aboriginal Tribe, which was transferred by fraud, and also provides the procedure for deciding such cases. Section 170-B provides as under : 170-B. Reversion of land of members of aboriginal tribe which was transferred by fraud.- (l) Every person who on the date of commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the amendment Act of 1980) is in possession of agricultural land which belonged to a member of a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub-section (6) of section 165 between the period commencing on the 2nd October, 1959 and ending on the date of the commencement of Amendment Act, 1980 shall, within (two years) of such commencement, notify to the Sub Divisional officer in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, all the information as to how he has come in possession of such land. (2) If any person fails to notify the information as required by sub-section (1) within the period specified therein it shall be presumed that such person has been in possession of the agricultural land without any lawful authority and the agricultural land shall, on the expiration of the period aforesaid revert to the person to whom it originally belonged and if that person be dead, to his legal heirs. (2-A) If a Gram Sabha in the Scheduled area referred to in clause (1) of Article 244 of the Constitution finds that any person, other than a member of an aboriginal tribe, is in possession of any land of a Bhumiswami belonging to an aboriginal tribe, without any lawful authority, it shall restore the possession of such land to that persons to whom it originally belonged and if that person is dead to his legal heirs : provided that if the Gram Sabha fails to restore the possession of such land, it shall refer the matter to the Sub Divisional officer, who shall restore the possession of such land within three months from the date of receipt of the reference. (3) On receipt of the information under sub-section (1), the Sub Divisional Officer shall make such enquiry as may be deemed necessary about all such transactions of transfer and if he finds that the member of aboriginal tribe has been defrauded of his legitimate right he shall declare the transaction null and void and pass an order revesting the agricultural land in the transferer and, if he is dead, in his legal heirs. (3) On receipt of the information under sub-section (1) the Sub Divisional Officer shall make such enquiry as may be necessary about all such transactions of transfer and if he finds that the member of aboriginal tribe has been defrauded of his legitimate right he shall declare the transaction null and void and - (a) Where no building or structure has been erected on the agricultural land prior to such finding pass an order revesting the agricultural land in the transferer and if he be dead, in his legal heirs. (b) Where any building or structure has been erected on the agricultural land prior to such finding, he shall fix the price of such land in accordance with the principles laid down for fixation of price of land in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and order the person referred to in sub-section (1) to pay to the transferer the difference, if any, between the price so fixed and the price actually paid to the transferer : provided that where the building or structure has been erected after the 1st day of January, 1984, the provisions of clause (b)above shall not apply : provided further that fixation of price under clause (b) shall be with reference to the price on the date of registration of the case before the Sub Divisional Officer. ( 7. ) THE Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Dhirendra Nath Sharma V. State of M. P. AIR 1986 MP 122 , while upholding the constitutional validity of section 170-B has considered the scheme of that section and has held that: 12. Section 170-B was inserted later for the same purpose with a view to cover the remaining transfers of agricultural land belonging to tribals under which they had been exploited resulting from their unequal bargaining capacity at the time of the transaction. By enacting S. 170-B, a duty was cast on every person in possession of agricultural land, which belonged to a tribal at any time between 2nd Oct. 1959 and the date of commencement of the amendment Act of 1980 to notify the Sub-Divisional Officer within the period specified in the prescribed manner all the information as to how he had come in possession of such land. Obviously, the provisions enacted in S. 170-A for initiation of the proceedings was not found sufficient and, therefore, such a provision became necessary to ensure that every such transaction of transfer of land belonging to a tribal at any time after 2nd Oct. 1959 when the M. P. Land Revenue Code. 1959 came into force was brought to the notice of the Sub-Divisional Officer to enable examination of its validity on the basis of information supplied by the person in possession. Sub-see. 1959 when the M. P. Land Revenue Code. 1959 came into force was brought to the notice of the Sub-Divisional Officer to enable examination of its validity on the basis of information supplied by the person in possession. Sub-see. (3) provides that on the receipt of such information, the Sub-Divisional Officer shall make such enquiry as may be deemed necessary about all such transactions of transfer and if he finds that the tribal transferor has been defrauded, the transaction shall be declared null and void and an order would be made revesting the agricultural land in the tribal transferor or his legal heirs, as the case may be. The order contemplated by sub-sec. (3) is to be passed only as a consequence of a finding reached after due enquiry that in the transaction of transfer, the tribal transferor had been defrauded of his legitimate right. Unless such a conclusion is reached, no question arises of declaring the transaction null and void and passing an order revesting the agricultural land in the tribal transferor or his legal heirs. 13. Sub-sec. (2) of S. 170-B merely lays down a rule of evidence. It says that where the person in possession fails to notify the information, as required by sub-sec. (1) within the specified period, it shall be presumed that such person has been in possession of the agricultural land without any lawful authority and the land shall revert to the transferor or his legal heirs, as the case may be Obviously, the presumption arising by virtue of sub-sec. (2) is based on the ground that if the person in possession has nothing to say nor show that his possession is under any lawful right and that the same is not derived as a result of a transaction defrauding the tribal transferor, the logical consequence must follow to presume that the transfer was void. The rule of evidence contained in sub-sec. (2) providing for such a presumption obviously dispenses with any further enquiry in such a case and the final order contemplated by sub-sec. (3) is required to be made taking into account this presumption arising under sub-sec. (2 ). 14. It is obvious that in all cases including those in which a presumption arises under sub-sec. (2), a final order contemplated by sub-sec. (3) is required to be made taking into account this presumption arising under sub-sec. (2 ). 14. It is obvious that in all cases including those in which a presumption arises under sub-sec. (2), a final order contemplated by sub-sec. (3) has to be made and it is only the making of such an order which results in the declaration that the transaction is null and void and the agricultural land revests in the transferor or his legal heirs. Unless such an order is made even in cases in which the presumption under sub-sec. (2) arises, there, would be no order for implementation to bring about the desired result. The contention on behalf of the petitioners that no order is contemplated in a case covered by sub-sec. (2), has no merit and the further argument, based thereon does not, therefore, require any consideration. The Division Bench of this court has further held that: 19. The main challenge in S. 170-B is to sub-sec. (2) thereof. It was contended that the effect of sub-sec. (2) is to usurp the judicial function. It was also urged that there is repugnancy between central enactments like the Limitation Act, Transfer of Property act and Contract Act, for sub-sec. (2) it was also argued by some counsel that its effect results in deprivation of means of livelihood necessary for existence with dignity of a non-tribal transferee without any enquiry, which contravenes Art. 21 of the Constitution. In short, the argument is that the procedure prescribed by sub-sec. (2) is not fair and reasonable and, therefore, it also offends art. 21. In substance, these are the arguments to assail S. 170-B and particularly sub-sec. (2) therein. 20. The construction we have made earlier of S. 170-B including sub-sec. (2) therein is sufficient to repel most of the arguments advanced to assail its validity. The mere fact that an order contemplated by sub-sec. (3) has to be passed even in cases falling within the ambit of sub-sec. (2), as practice which is admittedly being followed, is sufficient to indicate that there is no usurpation of judicial function thereby and there is no arbitrariness in the procedure nor is there the vice of absence of enquiry. In fact, none of the counsel appearing for the petitioners was in a position to make any serious challenge even to sub-sec. (2), as practice which is admittedly being followed, is sufficient to indicate that there is no usurpation of judicial function thereby and there is no arbitrariness in the procedure nor is there the vice of absence of enquiry. In fact, none of the counsel appearing for the petitioners was in a position to make any serious challenge even to sub-sec. (2) of S. 17-B on the above construction made thereof by us and indicated even by the learned Additional Advocate General of the hearing of these petitions. ( 8. ) THE position has been further made clear in subsequent Division Bench judgment in the matter of Atmaram Rohulla and others V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1995 MPLJ 633 , wherein it has been held : ( 9. ) AS explained in Dhirendra Nath Sharmas case even in a case governed by sub-section (2) of section 170-B of the code, there must be show cause notice and enquiry. In reply to show cause notice, it is open to the vendee in possession to aver that his possession is by lawful authority. It must be open to him to adduce evidence in support of his contention that his possession is by lawful authority. If the S. D. O. is satisfied on the materials before him either produced by the vendee or received from other sources that the vendees possession is based on lawful authority, the presumption is rebutted. That is the end of the operation of sub-section (2 ). It is important to know that the presumption has nothing to do with the aspect whether the document is obtained by fraud or other unfair means or whether the document is substantially unfair and constitutes fraudulent transaction affecting legitimate rights of the tribals. The presumption is confined only to one aspect in a narrow compass namely, whether the possession is without lawful authority. 9. The same view has been reiterated in the matter of Baldeo Singh v. Shukka, AIR 1999 MP 91 . Thus, the presumption under section 170b (2) is rebuttable presumption and in all cases including those in which a presumption arises under section 170b (2) a final order contemplated under section 170b (3) has to passed looking to the object of the provision show cause notice and enquiry is necessary in such cases. ( 10. Thus, the presumption under section 170b (2) is rebuttable presumption and in all cases including those in which a presumption arises under section 170b (2) a final order contemplated under section 170b (3) has to passed looking to the object of the provision show cause notice and enquiry is necessary in such cases. ( 10. ) A perusal of sub section (1) of section 170-B also shows that the provision applies to agricultural land in respect of members of the Tribe, which was declared to be the aboriginal Tribe as per section 6 of section 165. Sub section (3) of section 170-B provides that the Sub Divisional Officer will make the necessary enquiry about transaction of transfer. In the case of Atmaram (supra) it has been held that presumption under section 170-B (2) is confined to only one aspect i. e. whether the possession is without lawful authority. Therefore, if the person in possession shows that he is in possession with lawful authority the presumption stands rebutted. ( 11. ) IN the present case, a perusal of the order passed by the Sub Divisional officer indicates that no show cause was given and no enquiry was conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer. There is no discussion of any facts or law and the Sub divisional Officer by a short order has directed for restoration of possession to the respondents. ( 12. ) A perusal of the memo of appeal preferred before the Collector (annexure p/3) shows that in the appeal, the petitioner had raised specific ground that they had not obtained the possession by committing any fraud on any tribal and that the land in question is not an agricultural land but Abadi land and petitioners are bonafide purchaser and after purchasing the land they had constructed the house by spending considerable amount. The Collector while deciding the appeal has also not examined any of these grounds and rejected the appeal by short order by simply mentioning that he disagreed with the submissions. ( 13. ) THE revisional authority has also rejected the submissions without assigning any cogent reasons and without looking into the requirements of section 170-B of the Code. Therefore, the orders passed by the S. D. O. , Collector and the revisional authority cannot be sustained. ( 14. ) IN view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. ( 13. ) THE revisional authority has also rejected the submissions without assigning any cogent reasons and without looking into the requirements of section 170-B of the Code. Therefore, the orders passed by the S. D. O. , Collector and the revisional authority cannot be sustained. ( 14. ) IN view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The orders passed by the S. D. O. , Collector and revisional authority are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Sub Divisional Officer to conduct an enquiry into the matter by giving an opportunity to the petitioner and pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order keeping in mind the requirements of section 170-B of the M. P. Land Revenue code, 1959. No orders as to costs. Petition allowed.